Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §18.3.8.pr

Inapplicability of Forfeiture Due to Absence and Treasury Warning

Passage 2697 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Scaevola decides that if a buyer was ready to pay the remaining price but was prevented by the seller's absence and a warning from the treasury, the forfeiture clause of the sale does not apply, and the buyer has not violated the agreement.

[SCAEUOLA libro septimo digestorum. ] §18.3.8.prMulier fundos Gaio Seio uendidit et acceptis arrae nomine certis pecuniis statuta sunt tempora solutioni reliquae pecuniae: quibus si non paruisset emptor, pactus est, ut arram perderet et inemptae uillae essent.
[SCAEVOLA, Digests, book 7.] A woman sold certain lands to Gaius Seius, and, having received a certain sum of money by way of earnest, terms were fixed for the payment of the remaining money; and it was agreed that if the buyer did not comply with these, he should lose the earnest and the villas should be as if unsold.
die statuto emptor testatus est se pecuniam omnem reliquam paratum fuisse exsoluere (et sacculum cum pecunia signatorum signis obsignauit), defuisse autem uenditricem, posteriore autem die nomine fisci testato conuentum emptorem, ne ante mulieri pecuniam exsolueret quam fisco satisfaceret.
On the appointed day, the buyer formally declared that he had been ready to pay all the remaining money (and he sealed up the bag containing the money with the seals of witnesses), but that the female seller had failed to appear; and that on the following day, he had been formally warned in the name of the treasury not to pay the money to the woman before he had satisfied the treasury.
quaesitum est, an fundi non sint in ea causa, ut a uenditrice uindicari debeant ex conuentione uenditoris.
The question was raised whether the lands were not in such a position that they ought to be recovered by the female seller under the agreement of the seller.
respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur non commisisse in legem uenditionis emptorem.
He answered that, according to the facts presented, the buyer had not violated the condition of the sale.

Notes

  1. §18.3.8.prpactus est — "agreed". Third-person singular perfect of the deponent verb paciscor, with emptor (the buyer) as the subject. While literally meaning "the buyer agreed", it practically refers to a mutual agreement or clause, functioning similarly to the impersonal pactum est ("it was agreed").
  2. §18.3.8.prconuentum emptorem — That the buyer was summoned (or warned). Part of the accusative-with-infinitive (AcI) construction dependent on the main verb testatus est ("declared"). The infinitive esse is omitted from conuentum [esse], and emptorem is its subject accusative. Here, conuenire is used in the passive sense meaning "to be legally approached, warned, or sued."
  3. §18.3.8.prnon commisisse in legem uenditionis — "Had not violated the condition of the sale." The phrase committere in legem is a Roman legal term meaning to violate a condition or forfeit a right by failing to meet contractual terms (such as a forfeiture clause). Since the buyer's failure to pay was due to external factors (the seller's absence and the treasury's warning) rather than willful default, he is held not to have triggered the forfeiture clause.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §18.3.8.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:18.3.8.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.