English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this paper I deal with selected aspects of the concept of loss of enrichment in Roman law. I analyse a particular problem where someone acting in good faith has transferred to a third person a thing of another which he has previously received without legal ground. It was tackled by Ulpian in D.12.6.26.12 (Ulp. 26 ad ed.), where the jurist used the crucial phrase quod ex pretio habes, which can be interpreted in two ways: “what you still have left from the price” or “what you have received as price”. In modern translations of Digest the former interpretation is used, while in the Romanist literature the latter prevails. I present the views expressed in literature and analyse relevant sources of Roman law in search for clues which of those interpretations is the proper one. Finally, I come to the conclusion that the modern translation of D.12.6.26.12 should take into account the currently prevailing view on the interpretation of quod ex pretio habes, because this view is based in other sources.

Quod ex pretio habes – some remarks on the scope of unjustiAed enrichment liability in Roman law