- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:2.14.39.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-31
Papinianus states the opinion of the ancient jurists that obscure or ambiguous contractual terms should be interpreted against the seller or lessor, who had the power to draft them more clearly.
[IDEM libro quinto quaestionum.]
[THE SAME, Questions, book 5]
Ueteribus1 placet pactionem obscuram uel ambiguam uenditori et qui locauit nocere, in quorum fuit potestate2 legem3 apertius conscribere.
It is accepted by the ancient jurists that an obscure or ambiguous agreement is prejudicial to the seller and to the lessor, in whose power it was to draft the term more clearly.
- 2.14.39.prUeteribus
Masculine plural dative of the adjective uetus used substantively. It functions as the dative with placet, meaning 'it is accepted by the ancient jurists' (referring to Republican or early classical jurists).
- 2.14.39.prin quorum fuit potestate
The relative pronoun quorum refers back to uenditori et qui locauit (the seller and the lessor). The idiom in potestate alicuius esse means 'to be within one's power or control.' The real subject of fuit is the following infinitive phrase legem apertius conscribere (to draft the term more clearly).
- 2.14.39.prlegem
Here lex does not mean a 'statute' enacted by the state, but rather a 'contractual term' or 'condition' (lex contractus) binding between the parties.