| Popis: |
D. 3,5,8 and the rule ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’. ‒ The rule ‘ratihabitio mandato comparatur’ is deduced from various texts (see D. 46,3,12,4; D. 43,16,1,14; D. 50,17,152,2). In D. 3,5,8 Scaevola appears to disagree when he says that ratihabitio of an improperly conducted business does not lead to a mandate but to negotiorum gestio. In order to explain this it has been suggested that the rule only dealt with the effects of ratihabitio vis-à-vis third parties and did not concern the relationship between principal and agent. If this were the case, one would have to explain why Ulpian in D. 50,17,60 explicitly mentions an actio mandati for that situation. Most scholars, therefore, assume an interpolation of D. 50,17,60, but it is equally possible that Ulpian’s decision can be attributed to its original context or that the law changed between Scaevola and Ulpian. |
