CONCLUSIONS

What conclusions does this short discussion allow? First, that if these reflec­tions are accurate, then it is too simple to suppose that the motor for devel­opment of the law was either legal doctrine or principle alone or social or economic utility.

Second, within this area of economic life there was a range of possible remedies, and a degree of overlap between them. We can of course take a view on the weaknesses apparently inherent in some remedies only if we consider the picture as a whole; there is no point in identifying a gap in one remedy when another one fills the gap perfectly. Nevertheless, in this context the prize is clearly liability in solidum, and at least in the case of the actio exercitoria the threshold appears to have been set rather high.

Third, in this context as in others there is a range of possible remedies, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. This is quite typical in Roman law: one thinks of the possibilities for suing objectionable neighbours by means of the actio legis Aquiliae, interdict quod vi aut clam, damnum infectum, operis novi nuntiatio, or actio aquae pluviae arcendae. Those remedies, like the ones discussed here, have their different attractions for different factual situations. It is legitimate to conclude that, in order to vindicate your rights effectively in Roman law, it was necessary to have a good lawyer.