Chapter 10 Multiple choice questions

. Liability in the Roman law of delict was strictly personal. This meant that:

death of the wrongdoer did not terminate his delictual liability. It could also be imposed on his heir without any limitations.

death of the wrongdoer terminated his delictual liability. It could only be imposed upon his heir to the extent to which the latter had benefited from it.

death of the victim terminated the wrongdoer's delictual liability.

all of the above

. In the Roman law of theft:

the actiones furti (manifesti/nec manifesti) were used for the recovery of stolen property.

the condictio furtiva was used to claim quadruple/double the value of the object stolen as a penalty.

the actiones furti (manifesti/nec manifesti) were used to claim quadruple/double the value of the object stolen as a penalty.

none of the above.

. Contrectatio as a requirement of theft in classical (i.e. of the first three centuries of the Empire) Roman law:

only referred to an asportation/removal of the object.

referred to any kind of meddling or interference with an object with the intent to steal.

only referred to the unlawful retention of an object already in one's custody.

always required physical contact between the thief and the stolen property.

. One of the requirements for theft was the thief's interference had to have been fraudulent. This meant:

that the thief had to be capable of dishonest intent.

that fraudulent intent was tested according to an objective standard.

that the interference had to have occurred without the owner's consent.

all of the above.

. Objects that could be stolen included:

res communes/sacra/sancta.

movables.

people.

abandoned property.

. Robbery (Rapina):

was a separate delict already in early Roman law.

was a praetorian remedy introduced in 77 BC.

did not cover those situations were legitimate claims were enforced in a violent manner.

was tried before the Praetor.

. The delict iniuria in classical (i.e. of the first three centuries of the Empire) Roman law:

only covered actual physical harm to the body of the victim.

only covered infringements upon the good name/reputation of another.

also included unintentional aggression towards the person or personality of another.

included any unlawful and intentional aggression towards the person or personality of another.

. The historical antecedents of iniuria mentioned in the Twelve Tables did not include:

infringement of one's reputation.

maiming of a limb.

breaking of bones with a fist or club.

severe bodily injuries.

. In classical Roman law, the actio iniuriarum:

did not lead to the wrongdoer being branded with infamia.

was a penal action and served to punish (financially) the wrongdoer.

had no time limit and could even be brought after a period of one year.

operated on a system of fixed penalties that had to be observed by the iudex.

. According to Ulpian in D.9.2.1pr, the Lex Aquilia "took away the force of all earlier laws which dealt with unlawful damage [to property]." This means:

that the earlier legislative provisions dealing with wrongful damage to property were expressly abrogated by this statute.

that the earlier legislative provisions dealing with wrongful damage to property were not affected by this statute.

that the earlier legislative provisions dealing with wrongful damage to property continued to exist, but were rendered unimportant by the enactment of the Lex Aquilia.

all of the above.

. Chapter 2 of the Lex Aquilia dealt with:

unlawful killing of a slave or a beast of burden.

any other damage to property through unlawful burning, breaking or spoiling.

severe injury to a slave or a beast of burden.

adstipulatio.

. Under chapter 3 of the Lex Aquilia, loss was calculated (according to the continental view):

using the highest value of the object in the year preceding the incident.

using the highest value of the object in the 30 days before the incident.

using the value of the object immediately prior to the incident.

using the difference between the value immediately before and immediately after the incident.

. To succeed with an action under the Lex Aquilia, a plaintiff had to prove (among other things) that he had suffered loss. Such loss:

did not have to be ascertainable.

included sentimental loss.

did not include speculative loss.

did not include consequential loss by the classical period.

. The Praetorian extension of the corpori corpore requirements in the Lex Aquilia presumably occurred in the following order:

First corpore, but not corpori; thereafter corpori but not corpore; finally neither corpori nor corpore, provided that a causal link between the wrongdoer's act and the resulting damage existed.

First corpori, but not corpore; thereafter corpore, but not corpori; finally neither corpori nor corpore, provided that a causal link between the wrongdoer's act and the resulting damage existed.

First neither corpori nor corpore, provided that a causal link between the wrongdoer's act and the resulting damage existed; thereafter corpore but not corpori; finally corpori, but not corpore.

None of the above.

. Corruption of slaves, a Praetorian delict:

was said to have been committed when someone deliberately and fraudulently caused the mental, physical or moral deterioration of a slave.

could not be committed when a slave was naturally corrupt.

did not overlap with the actions under the Lex Aquilia

all of the above.

. Someone who had been forced to enter into a transaction or to commit a disadvantageous act:

had no remedy in Roman law if the wrongdoer sought to enforce the transaction.

could plead a defence of fraud (exceptio metus) if the wrongdoer sought to enforce the transaction.

could seek restitution if the wrongdoer sought to enforce the transaction.

could not institute a delictual action if the wrongdoer failed to make restitution.

. The quasi-delict, res suspensae:

could only be brought against the owner of the building.

could only be brought once the object suspended had fallen down and caused damage.

also lay against the heirs of the defendant.

could be bought against the occupier of the building even if damage had not yet occurred.

. Under the Lex Aquilia, contributory negligence:

did not constitute a defence.

constituted a complete defence.

was treated by in juristic discussions as a separate issue from fault.

constituted a partial defence.

. Under the action for robbery (actio vi bonorum raptorum):

the measure of damages was based on the value of the property.

double damages could be claimed after a period of one year.

fourfold damages could be claimed within one year as well as the recovery of the property itself with the rei vindicatio.

the object robbed could not be recovered.

. Threats which amounted to duress:

had to be directed at the complainant personally.

had to imply imminent harm.

were judged according to a subjective standard.

all of the above.

Quiz Content