Introduction

In Chapters 22 and 23 we considered the two most important of the Roman delicts, liability under the lex Aquilia and liability for iniuria (insult). These were not the only delicts, however, and in this chapter we consider some others.

There is less focus on these, as they have been less influential on later law. As we saw in Chapter 22, by contrast, the scope of the lex Aquilia became greatly expanded from its origins imposing liability for wrongful damage to property. Through juristic interpretation and praetorian intervention, it came to include much of the ground covered by the delicts discussed in this chapter.^[2576] While, as we shall see, there were often good reasons for a Roman litigant to bring (say) an action for theft, these mostly relate to the calculation of damages. In modern law, delictual damages are compensaВtory rather than penal, so such considerations are now largely irrelevant. Thus, the breadth of Aquilian liability meant that it largely formed the basis of post-Roman developments on delictual liability for financial loss.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Anderson Craig. Roman Law for Scots Law Students. Edinburgh University Press,2021. вЂ” 496 p.. 2021

More legal literature on Laws.Studio

Introduction

More on the topic Introduction: