This is a study on the Dutch private law doctrine of the indivisibility of the security rights pledge (pand) and hypothec (hypotheek). It deals with the roots of this doctrine in roman law, ius... Show moreThis is a study on the Dutch private law doctrine of the indivisibility of the security rights pledge (pand) and hypothec (hypotheek). It deals with the roots of this doctrine in roman law, ius commune and French customary law. Show less
In current Dutch law, a concurrence of actions is possible between the rei vindicatio and the action to recover an undue payment (‘vordering uit onverschuldigde betaling’). From a historical point... Show moreIn current Dutch law, a concurrence of actions is possible between the rei vindicatio and the action to recover an undue payment (‘vordering uit onverschuldigde betaling’). From a historical point of view, though, this concurrence is remarkable. In Roman law, the rei vindicatio and the condictio—the historical precursor of the modern actio to recover an undue payment—were opposites: whereas the rei vindicatio was based on the plaintiff’s ownership of an object, the condictio was based on the defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff. Consequently, concurrence of these actions was, barring a few—but noteworthy—exceptions, impossible. This book explores the development of the condictio in relation to the rei vindicatio. As part of this development, the requirement that transfer of ownership is only possible when a valid title (iusta causa) is present—and the question what actually constitutes a iusta causa—plays an important role. Consecutively, attention is given to Roman law, the ius commune, and the enactment of the modern codifications in Germany, Switzerland, France, and the Netherlands. (Contains a summary in German; Mit einer Zusammenfassung auf Deutsch.) Show less
