Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
30
butnormallythecontractwouldendwiththechangeofwillbymandator21.Wearemore
inclinedtowardsthefirstreadingofthepassagebecauseofthecontext.Also,itmakes
sensewithregardtopossibleproblemsthatwouldbesimilartothisone.
Theconnectionwiththeconclusionofcontractscanbemadebysettingatthesame
levelregularacceptanceandrevocationfromthiscase.Astheconclusionofcontracts
requirestwodeclarationsinwhichtheacceptanceisfinal,hereitisonlyonedeclaration
neededtofinishthecontract,andthisistheonesentinthesecondletter.Accordingtothe
ruleappliedtoit,theacceptancewouldalsocreateobligationonlywhentheotherparty
becameawareofitscontent.
Theothersetofcircumstanceswherethereisanintervaloftimebetweentheevent
causingtheterminationofthecontractandtheacknowledgementofthisfromothercon-
tractingpartyinthematerialsonmandaterelatestothedeathofmandator.Theproblemof
temporaldifferenceanditseffectwasobjectofseveraltextsbyGaius(G.3,60)andPaul
(D.17,1,26pr.,D.17,1,58pr.,D.39,5,19,3)wheretheexceptionfromthegeneralrule
mandatumsolviturmorteiselaborated22.Itpertainstothefactthatthepromisorundertook
arequestedtaskwithoutknowingthatthepersonwhoaskedhimthathaddied.Mostpre-
ciseexplanationofthislegalsituationgavePaul,orbettersaidJulianwhomhecitedin:
D.17,1,26pr.(Paul.32aded.).Intercausasomittendimandatietiammorsmandatorisest:nam
mandatumsolviturmorte.Sitamenperignorantiamimpletumest,competereactionemutilitatis
causadicitur.Iulianusquoquescripsitmandatorismortesolvimandatum,sedobligationemali-
quandodurare.
WhilePaulstrictlystatesthatmandateendswiththedeathofmandator,butonly
theactionisgivenutilitatiscausa,Juliandefinesthesituationveryperceptively–the
contractitselfisterminated,buttheobligationstilllasts23.Althoughthisconceptionis
notinconformitywithourpreviousconclusionthatthecontractendswhentheother
partybecomesawareofrevocation,thedifferencebetweenthetwomustbetakeninto
consideration.Therevocationisasubjectiveoccurrence,whilethedeathisobjective.
Nevertheless,therighttouseactiomandaticontrariadependsonthemomentinwhich
thepromisorbecameawareofthemandator,sdeath.
4.Theotherconsensualcontract,societas,itisalsostressedatthebeginningofthetitle
inDigestthatitcanbeconcludedusingletters,i.e.interabsentesofferssimilarsituation
21
K.Heldrichconsideredthisexceptiontobetheresultofbonafidesnatureofthecontract,whilethe
contractitselfendedearlier.Cf.K.Heldrich,DasVerschulden,s.26.
22
Ontheproblemofmandatetransandpostmortemcf.P.Bonfante,Mandato,postmortem’,Giur.It.,
vol.55:1903,nr4(=ScrittigiuridicivariiIII:Obbligazioni,comunioneepossesso,Torino1926),p.262
sqq.;B.Biondi,Dirittoereditarioromano:partegenerale,Milano1954,p.104;A.Watson,Mandate,p.125
sqq.;M.Harder,ZumtransmortalenundpostmortalenAuftragnachrömischemundgeltendemRecht[in:]
SeinundWerdenimRecht,FestschriftfürUlrichvonLübtow,Berlin1970,p.518sqq.;R.Zimmerman,The
LawofObligations,p.424sqq.
23
Onthemeaningofutilitatiscausainthistext,andthosealsorelated,therearedifferentopinions.
Whileitisgeneralopinionthatitwasintroducedtoencouragepeopletotakemandateevenfrommandators
wholivefaraway,A.Watsonprincipallypointstotheprincipleofbonafidesasbasisforsolutionutilitatis
causa.Leptiencombinedbothinhisexplanationoftheapplicationoftheprinciple.Cf.A.Watson,Mandate,
p.133;U.Leptien,ZweckmässigkeitsentscheidungenimrömischenRecht,Freiburg1967(conciselyinSDHI,
t.35:1969,p.51sqq.);H.Ankum,Utilitatiscausareceptum.Surlaméthodepragmatiquedesjuristesro-
mainsclassiques,RIDA3esér.,vol.15:1968,p.119sqq.
