Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre

Choose your answers from a-d by clicking the radio button next to each choice and then press 'Submit' to get your score.

Question 01

Liability in the Roman law of delict was strictly personal. This meant that:

a) death of the wrongdoer did not terminate his delictual liability. It could also be imposed on his heir without any limitations.

b) death of the wrongdoer terminated his delictual liability. It could only be imposed upon his heir to the extent to which the latter had benefited from it.

c) death of the victim terminated the wrongdoer's delictual liability.

d) all of the above.

Question 02

In the Roman law of theft:

a) the actiones furti (manifesti/nec manifesti) were used for the recovery of stolen property.

b) the condictio furtiva was used to claim quadruple/double the value of the object stolen as a penalty.

c) the actiones furti (manifesti/nec manifesti) were used to claim quadruple/double the value of the object stolen as a penalty.

d) none of the above.

Question 03

Contrectatio as a requirement of theft in classical Roman law:

a) only referred to an asportation/removal of the object.

b) referred to any kind of meddling or interference with an object with the intent to steal.

c) only referred to the unlawful retention of an object already in one's custody.

d) always required physical contact between the thief and the stolen property.

Question 04

One of the requirements for theft was the thief's interference had to have been fraudulent. This meant:

a) that the thief had to be capable of dishonest intent.

b) that fraudulent intent was tested according to an objective standard.

c) that the interference had to have occurred without the owner's consent.

d) all of the above.

Question 05

Objects that could be stolen included:

a) res communes/sacra/sancta.

b) movables capable of private ownership.

c) land.

d) intentionally abandoned property.

Question 06

Robbery (Rapina):

a) was a separate delict already in early Roman law.

b) was an ius civile remedy introduced in 177 BC.

c) did not cover those situations where legitimate claims were enforced in a violent manner.

d) was tried before the Emperor.

Question 07

The delict iniuria in classical Roman law:

a) only covered actual physical harm to the body of the victim.

b) only covered infringements upon the good name/reputation of another.

c) also included unintentional aggression towards the person or personality of another.

d) included any unlawful and intentional aggression towards the person or personality of another.

Question 08

The historical antecedents of iniuria mentioned in the Twelve Tables did not include:

a) infringement of one's reputation.

b) maiming of a limb.

c) breaking of bones with a fist or club.

d) severe bodily injuries.

Question 09

In classical Roman law, the actio iniuriarum:

a) did not lead to the wrongdoer being branded with infamia.

b) was a penal action and served to punish the wrongdoer.

c) had no time limit and could even be brought after a period of one year.

d) operated on a system of fixed penalties that had to be observed by the iudex.

Question 10

According to Ulpian in D.9.2.1pr, the Lex Aquilia "took away the force of all earlier laws which dealt with unlawful damage [to property]." This means:

a) that the earlier legislative provisions dealing with wrongful damage to property were expressly abrogated by this statute.

b) that the earlier legislative provisions dealing with wrongful damage to property were not affected by this statute.

c) that the earlier legislative provisions dealing with wrongful damage to property continued to exist, but were rendered unimportant by the enactment of the Lex Aquilia.

d) all of the above.

Question 11

Chapter 2 of the Lex Aquilia dealt with:

a) unlawful killing of a slave or a beast of burden.

b) any other damage to property through unlawful burning, breaking or spoiling.

c) severe injury to a slave or a beast of burden.

d) adstipulatio.

Question 12

Under chapter 3 of the Lex Aquilia, loss was calculated (according to the continental view):

a) using the highest value of the object in the year preceding the incident.

b) using the highest value of the object in the 30 days before the incident.

c) using the value of the object immediately prior to the incident.

d) using the difference between the value immediately before and immediately after the incident.

Question 13

To succeed with an action under the Lex Aquilia, a plaintiff had to prove (among other things) that he had suffered loss. Such loss:

a) did not have to be ascertainable.

b) included sentimental loss.

c) did not include speculative loss.

d) did not include consequential loss by the classical period.

Question 14

The Praetorian extension of the corpori corpore requirements in the Lex Aquilia presumably occurred in the following order:

a) First corpore, but not corpori; thereafter corpori but not corpore; finally neither corpori nor corpore, provided that a causal link between the wrongdoer's act and the resulting damage existed.

b) First corpori, but not corpore; thereafter corpore, but not corpori; finally neither corpori nor corpore, provided that a causal link between the wrongdoer's act and the resulting damage existed.

c) First neither corpori nor corpore, provided that a causal link between the wrongdoer's act and the resulting damage existed; thereafter corpore but not corpori; finally corpori, but not corpore.

d) None of the above.

Question 15

Corruption of slaves, a Praetorian delict,:

a) was said to have been committed when someone deliberately and fraudulently caused the mental, physical or moral deterioration of a slave.

b) could not be committed when a slave was naturally corrupt.

c) did not overlap with the actions under the Lex Aquilia.

d) all of the above.

Question 16

Someone who had been forced to enter into a transaction or to commit a disadvantageous act:

a) had no remedy in Roman law if the wrongdoer sought to enforce the transaction.

b) could plead a defence of fraud if the wrongdoer sought to enforce the transaction.

c) could seek restitution if the wrongdoer sought to enforce the transaction.

d) could not institute a delictual action if the wrongdoer failed to make restitution.

Question 17

The quasi-delict, res suspensae:

a) could only be brought against the owner of the building.

b) could only be brought once the object suspended had fallen down and caused damage.

c) also lay against the heirs of the defendant.

d) could be bought against the occupier of the building even if damage had not yet occurred.

Question 18

Under the Lex Aquilia, contributory negligence:

a) did not constitute a defence.

b) constituted a complete defence.

c) was treated by in juristic discussions as a separate issue from fault.

d) constituted a partial defence.

Question 19

Under the action for robbery (actio vi bonorum raptorum):

a) the measure of damages was based on the value of the property.

b) double damages could be claimed after a period of one year.

c) fourfold damages could be claimed within one year as well as the recovery of the property itself with the rei vindicatio.

d) the object robbed could not be recovered.

Question 20

Threats which amounted to duress:

a) had to be directed at the complainant personally.

b) had to imply imminent harm.

c) were judged according to a subjective standard.

d) all of the above.

Oxford University Press, Online Resource Centre, Chapter 10.

Chapter 10

Instructions

Question 01

Question 02

Question 03

Question 04

Question 05

Question 06

Question 07

Question 08

Question 09

Question 10

Question 11

Question 12

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

Question 16

Question 17

Question 18

Question 19

Question 20