Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §45.1.22.pr

Validity of Stipulation in Case of Mistake in Material

Passage 7368 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Discusses that when there is agreement on the identity of the object (corpus), a mistake about its material (gold vs. bronze) does not invalidate the contract, though a suit based on fraud is available if the other party acted in bad faith.

[PAULUS libro nono ad Sabinum. ] §45.1.22.prSi id quod aurum putabam, cum aes esset, stipulatus de te fuero, teneberis mihi huius aeris nomine, quoniam in corpore consenserimus: sed ex doli mali clausula tecum agam, si sciens me fefelleris.
[PAULUS, in the ninth book on Sabinus.] If I should stipulate with you for something which I thought was gold, although it was bronze, you will be bound to me under the name of this bronze, because we agreed on the identity of the object; but I will sue you on the clause of fraud, if you knowingly deceived me.

Notes

  1. §45.1.22.prcum aes esset — A cum clause with the subjunctive, expressing concession here ("although it was bronze").
  2. §45.1.22.prin corpore consenserimus — Meaning "we agreed on the identity of the object (corpus)." In Roman law, if there is agreement on the specific object, a mistake regarding its material (materia) does not render the contract void, and the stipulation is validly concluded for that object.
  3. §45.1.22.prtecum agam — The verb agere is used in its legal sense, meaning "I will bring an action against you." Combined with ex doli mali clausula (based on the clause of fraud), it refers to the legal remedy available against bad faith (dolus malus).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §45.1.22.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:45.1.22.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.