Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Accessio and specificatio reconsidered

Accessio and specificatio reconsidered <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Contrary to the dominant opinion of contemporary Roman law studies, <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic> were not considered in ancient Roman law as independent modes of acquisition of ownership. They became regarded as such only in the 12th Century. In ancient Roman law, what later came to be called <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> caused only an extension of the ownership of the principal thing to include also the accessory without, however, giving rise to a new ownership. On the other hand, what later came to be called <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic> caused the extinction of the object, both from the physical and from the juridical point of view. If, in place of the extinguished thing a new one came into existence it could have been acquired by <jats:italic>occupatio</jats:italic>.</jats:p> <jats:p>Since the technical juridical terms <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic> were unknown to the Roman jurists, the cases provided by ancient sources cannot be clearly divided into these categories. Furthermore such classifications, since external to the sources, create superfluous problems. In order to attribute ownership the Roman jurists examined the identity of an object rather than classified cases as <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> or <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic>.</jats:p> <jats:p>The principal texts on which the argumentation is based are: D. 6.1.5.1<jats:italic>pr</jats:italic>.–1, D. 6.1.3.2, D. 41.1.7.7 und D. 41.1.7.8–9.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Legal History Review / Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/accessio-and-specificatio-reconsidered-LDjbRF8zCv

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0040-7585
eISSN
1571-8190
DOI
10.1163/157181906776931126
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Contrary to the dominant opinion of contemporary Roman law studies, <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic> were not considered in ancient Roman law as independent modes of acquisition of ownership. They became regarded as such only in the 12th Century. In ancient Roman law, what later came to be called <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> caused only an extension of the ownership of the principal thing to include also the accessory without, however, giving rise to a new ownership. On the other hand, what later came to be called <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic> caused the extinction of the object, both from the physical and from the juridical point of view. If, in place of the extinguished thing a new one came into existence it could have been acquired by <jats:italic>occupatio</jats:italic>.</jats:p> <jats:p>Since the technical juridical terms <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic> were unknown to the Roman jurists, the cases provided by ancient sources cannot be clearly divided into these categories. Furthermore such classifications, since external to the sources, create superfluous problems. In order to attribute ownership the Roman jurists examined the identity of an object rather than classified cases as <jats:italic>accessio</jats:italic> or <jats:italic>specificatio</jats:italic>.</jats:p> <jats:p>The principal texts on which the argumentation is based are: D. 6.1.5.1<jats:italic>pr</jats:italic>.–1, D. 6.1.3.2, D. 41.1.7.7 und D. 41.1.7.8–9.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

The Legal History Review / Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du DroitBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.