[ULPIANUS libro quarto decimo ad edictum. ] §13.5.27.prUtrum praesente debitore an absente constituat quis, parui refert.
[ULPIAN, from the fourteenth book on the Edict.] Whether someone promises payment in the presence or absence of the debtor is of little importance.
hoc amplius etiam inuito constituere eum posse Pomponius libro trigensimo quarto scribit: unde falsam putat opinionem Labeonis existimantis, si, postquam quis constituit pro alio, dominus ei denuntiet ne soluat, in factum exceptionem dandam: nec immerito Pomponius: nam cum semel sit obligatus qui constituit, factum debitoris non debet eum excusare.
Furthermore, Pomponius writes in his thirty-fourth book that one can promise payment even against the will of the debtor; hence he considers incorrect the opinion of Labeo, who thinks that if, after someone has promised payment on behalf of another, the principal debtor should forbid him to pay, an exception in factum must be granted. And Pomponius is not without reason; for since he who promised has once become bound, the act of the debtor ought not to excuse him.