Summary Julian’s solution of a sales law case as transmitted in D. 19,1,23 has often been described as erroneous, leading to a purchaser’s double compensation ex empto. It has been suggested that the fragment is interpolated and Julian was originally talking about actio fiduciae. Avoiding both an error by Julian as well as the suspicion of interpolation, this article tries to give another explanation, reinforcing aspects that have already been emphasized within the long lasting scholarly discussion and proposing a reconstruction of a lost element of Julian’s text.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johannes Platschek (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: