Culpability in contrahendo and useless stipulations (part one)
I have previously explained what were the useless stipulations in Roman law, what was for IHERING the culpa in contrahendo as the basis of any action to compensate in cases of useless stipulations or merely projected contractual relations, for the damages arising therefrom; the doctrinal background...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
1944
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/REUNC/article/view/10808 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | I have previously explained what were the useless stipulations in Roman law, what was for IHERING the culpa in contrahendo as the basis of any action to compensate in cases of useless stipulations or merely projected contractual relations, for the damages arising therefrom; the doctrinal background in SAVIGNY, CUJACIO, RICHELMANN, POTHIER and others; the systematic followed by IHERING and the effects of error in useless stipulations. |
|---|