Then, these four business activities are linked on the basis of the causae credenda and not on obligations re contractae. This is rather driven by the practical need to prove that, from a procedural perspective, the obligation of the bailee, depository and pledgee to reddere is availed through strictly restorative honorary actions, built on the basis of the condictio model that the lender applies against the borrower. However, we believe that in res cottidianae, far from establishing a new concept of re contrahere, it instead confirms its classical structure, restricted to the mutuum and the approach that is verified between the mutuum, on one hand, and the commodatum, depositum and pignus, on the other hand. This has encouraged the communis opinio, by which this writing is the starting point for the real contracts category from the Romanistic tradition up to the present day, that is, composed of mutuum, bailment, deposit and lien. Laddove, invece, gli editti pretorili avessero gi disciplinato in via. Nonetheless, the technical term re contrahitur obligatio refers, in this work, to the mutuum. ctio in fctum Azione in fatto Azione onoraria concessa dal magistrato sulla scorta di una valutazione di merito della fattispecie sottoposta alla sua cognizione, nel caso in cui la stessa non fosse prevista dall’ edictum vedi pretorile. 44,7,1,2), add the obligations undertaken by the bailee, custodian and the pledgee respectively, by using the generic terms re obligatur and re tenetur (D. 3,90), the res cottidianae, right after the explanation of this leading legal aspect (D.
Unlike the Institutes of Gaius, in which mutui datio stands alone, as the only assumption of obligatio re contracta (Gai. This position contrasts with that of other classical jurists such as Gaius and Paul, who are more attentive to the procedural similarities between deponere and credere, which is why it is possible to find in their works a rather ambiguous and unsystematic treatment of the issue, where there seems to be no real incompatibility between the two categories. An attempt is made to demonstrate that the ulpianean fragments studied are always based on considerations focused on the functional structure of the deponere, in order to distinguish it from the credere, either by omitting any reference to the depositum in their explanation of the content of the edictum de rebus creditis (12,1,1,1), or explicitly contrasting both notions in the context of privileged claims against an insolvent banker (D.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the treatment of the problem of the relationship between credit causes and the deposit in Ulpian’s thought, which seems to be synthesized in the dictum aliud est enim credere, aliud deponere.