Importance Of Obligatio In Roman Law

1.Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to critically discuss the importance of the development of the Roman law concept obligatio. The obligatio can be looked at as a watershed in the scientific discipline of jurisprudence. The term itself, in its most literal form means that something or someone is bound.

Justinian advanced the famous definition ‘Obligatio est iuris vinculum, quo necessitate adstringimur alicuius solvendae rei sceundum nostrae civitatis iura’ which can be loosely translated as: an obligation is a legal tie which binds us to the necessity of making some performance in accordance with the laws of our state.

This essay will explore the concept obligatio from its earliest form in ancient Rome through history (until) the

The remedy for the obligatio was always the action in personam as the obligatio was an agreement between two parties rather than a party and a thing.

2.2.Natural obligations

As stated the obligatio was enforceable via the Actiones Cilivies but there were many cases where the creditor had no efficient way of enforcing his obligatio, this is known as natural obligations.

These were not legally enforceable, but still had legal consequences; in effect the law recognizes some aspects of the transaction but does not help the creditor in enforcing his right.

The concept of Natural obligations has survived into the modern ages, The South African law still uses the term natural obligations in the circumstances set out above. The German Civil Code, in addition, still recognizes non-binding obligations, i.e. obligations arising from betting. 2.3.Contractus and Delictum

According to Gaius, in his institutes, an obligatio had two possible causes: a contractus or a

It was Gaius, who first attempted this feat, he imposed on civil law a subdivision between persons and things and later actions.

The law of obligations was not considered as a separate division this was due to the fact that the law of things concerned itself with both real rights and the law of patrimony in a broad sense. Thus, the law of things in part dealt with the law of obligations.

This tripartite division of persons, things and actions has left a lasting mark on most modern legal systems dispute its confusing nature. Gaius has mixed different criteria in his scheme, he differentiates between corporeal and incorpeal things, but fails to coherently carry it through as he introduces usufructs and praedial servitudes.

2.6.The Justinian method

Justinian in his attempt to structure the law, took over Gaius method. Although Gaius was used as a base Justinian created a more balanced logical structured method.

Justinian included obligations in book four, the book of ‘’actiones’’. By the Justinian period, however, actiones was entirely different to what it was in the classical period. Action had become part of the substantive law, meaning the right to demand a performance from a second