Error

An error may be essential error (error in corpore) which is such as prevents the parties from agreeing upon the same thing in the same sense, and which thus prevents the contract from arising, or vitiates the contract.

Or the error may be non-essential (error in substantia or materia) which exists when the parties agree upon the same thing in the same sense, but one party, unknown to the other, is mistaken as to the nature of the thing.

Whether a so-called non-essential error would vitiate the contract depended somewhat upon the materiality of the error.

Essential error might relate to the identity of the thing, or to the nature of the obligation to be assumed, or to the person of the promise. Thus one might stipulate for a certain slave while the other party is thinking of another slave (Inst. III, 19, 23 ) , or one might offer to let his farm, and the other, misunderstanding the offer, might agree to buy it (Dig. 44, 7, 57), again, one might agree to loan money to Titius, a reputable man, but, being imposed upon, pays it to another Titius who impersonates the party intended.

In all the above cases there is no contract. But a mistake merely in names is immaterial, as where two persons are negotiating for the purchase and sale of a piece of property which they know by different names. This contract is good. (Nihil enim facit error nominis, cum de corpore constat. Dig. 18, 1, 9, 1.)

Cases of non-essential error seem to have occurred most frequently in sales, as where a person bought an article thinking it was gold, when it was bronze, or thinking it solid silver, when it was only plated, the seller being ignorant of the buyer's mistake, and having no intent to defraud.

The authorities do not seem to afford any definite or absolute rule as to the effect of non-essential error. In the above cases the sales were held void, though not without authority to the contrary. The decisions probably turned upon the materiality of the error, a matter depending upon the circumstances of each case. A difference merely of quality as where a thing bought as of gold was largely alloy, would not vitiate the sale (Hunter, 580-584; Sohm, 210).

.

Effects of Marriage with Manus

By the strict marriage the wife passed into the marital power of her husband {in manum viri). The manus or marital power may be regarded as a particular form of the patria potestas. An uxor in manu was a member of her husband's household. Although called a materfamilias, this term did not have a meaning corresponding to the term paterfamilias. The wife was not the head of the family. She stood legally in the position of a daughter {in loco filiafamilias) of her husband. If she had children she was regarded as a sister of her own children. The relation of husband and wife, both as regards the wife's person and her property, was governed by the same rules of law as governed the relation of father and child. The law of husband and wife may, therefore, be considered as merely a particular branch of the law of parent and child. The husband had, in general, the same power over the person of his wife in manu as the father had over his child. Anciently, it may be suppo...
Read more

Slavery by Birth

The children of a female slave became the slaves of her master. The status of the father as free or slave was immaterial. The general rule governing the determination of the status of a child, whether as free or slave, or as citizen or alien, was as follows : Children born in lawful wedlock had the status of the father at the moment of conception, children born out of wedlock had the status of the mother at the moment of birth. Hence if the father of a child of a lawful marriage was free at the moment of conception, the child was free although the father should subsequently lose his freedom. As to children born out of wedlock, the general rule, as above stated, was that it was the status of the mother at the moment of birth that determined the status of the child. If the mother was free at the moment of conception but a slave at the moment of birth, the child was a slave, and conversely. This was the earlier law, but the rule was modified in the interest of liber...
Read more

Mandate (Mandatum)

Mandate (mandatum) was a contract by which one person mandatarius agreed to do something gratuitously at the request of another mandator , who, on his part, agreed to save him harmless from all loss in so doing. The mandator was said to give the mandatory a mandate, or commission to do the act in question. The term mandatum is sometimes translated "agency", but this translation is misleading. The mandatory is not properly described as an agent. Mandate was the only gratuitous consensual contract; the others, sale, hiring, and partnership, all being founded upon a consideration. Like the others, it was a bona fidei negotium , and bound the parties to do all that was required by good faith. It was of the essence of the contract of mandate that the mandatory should act gratuitously. But while this was true in a strict legal sense, it was allowed to agree upon a sum to be paid as a honorium , or salary, which might be recovered only by a special action and not b...
Read more