"Quod metus causa gestum erit, ratum non habeo"
It was either in 79 or 78 B.C. that a praetor by the name of Octavius for the first time introduced a formula into the edict which appears to have been directed against "per vim aut metum auferre"; 4 the actio Octaviana thus enabled the disadvantaged party to claim back what he had been compelled to hand over.
This was the historic starting point for the legal protection against unconscionable coercion, as we find it laid down more fully in Hadrian's edictum perpetuum. "Quod metus causa gestum erit, ratum non habebo", were the generalizing words with which the relevant title was introduced.15 What exactly did that entail? The key term "metus" was defined by Gaius in the following manner: "Metum autem non vani hominis, sed qui merito et in homine constantissimo cadat, ad hoc edictum pertinere dicemus."16 This very restrictive concept of metus is a typical reflection of the Roman attitude towards "man's central virtue":1 constantia. A Roman citizen could normally be held responsible for his actions and his declarations, and any attempt to get away from what he had done or said was instinctively frowned upon. The typical vir constans was not thrown off balance when faced with "timor quislibet";18 if that made him rush into a contract then this was due, above all, to an embarrassing lack of resoluteness. Hence the requirement that the fear experienced must have been of such a magnitude that it would have had an impact even on a man of the most steadfast character, on the (model) vir constantissimus.19 Fear of death,20 imprisonment,21 enslavement22 or of13 lust. IV, 13, 1.
Hartkamp, op. cit., note 12, pp. 245 sqq.; Berthold Kupisch, In integrum restitutio und vindkatio utilis hex Eigentumsiibertragungen im klassischen romischen Redit i 1974).
pp. 158 sqq.15 Ulp. D. 4, 2, 1. Ulpian adds: "[O]Hm ita edicebatur 'quod vi metusve causa': vis enim fiebat mentio propter necessitatem impositam contrariam voluntati: metus instantss vel futuri penculi causa mentis trepidatio, sed postea detracta est vis mentio ideo, quia quodeumque vi atroci fit, id metu quoque fieri videtur." On the relationship between vis and metus and the development sketched by Ulpian, cf. Udo Ebert, "Vi metusve causa", (1969) 86 ZSS 403 sqq.; Hartkamp, op. cit., note 12, pp. 1 sqq.; Kupisch, op. cit., note 14, pp. 192
D. 4, 2, 6. Cf. also Ulp. D. 4, 2, 7 pr.: "... si quis meticulosus rem nullam frustra timuerit, per hoc edictum non restituitur, quoniam neque vi neque metus causa factum est."
17 Schulz, Principles, p. 224.
18 Cf. Ulp. D. 4, 2, 5.
® He represents a Byzantine generalization of classic casuistry. For all details, see Hartkamp, op. cit., note 12, pp. 27 sqq.
® Cf. e.g. Ulp. D. 4. 2.3.1.
2 Cf. e.g. Ulp. D. 4. 2. 7. 1.
1 Paul. D. 4. 2. 8. 1.
stuprum23 fell into this category, not, for instance, fear of being exposed to legal proceedings24 or to infamia.25
1.
More on the topic "Quod metus causa gestum erit, ratum non habeo":
- Causa as an extra piece of "garment"
- "Solutio propria", "in praecisa forma et specie obligationis"[3885] (to use the terminology of the European ius commune) has always been, and still is, the most important way of terminating obligations.
- 2. From "Konsumptionskonkurrenz" to "Solutionskonkurrenz"
- 1. Restoration, damages and "Dtfferenztheorie "
- 2. The "natural" law of delict
- 1. The "iron" rule of Roman law and the notion of an implied lex commissoria
- "Animus iniuriandi" and Artemus Jones
- Essential elements of Roman "labour law"
- "De facto" contracts and implied promises
- Unenforceable obligations ("obligationes naturales")
- "Si paret... dare oportere"
- The limits of the notion of "corrumpere"
- The meaning of metus causa
- On the "reality" of real contracts
- 1. The "weakness" of enrichment claims in German law
- The meaning of "occidere"
- "Contributory negligence" in Roman law
- Once again: "Si vas" (Pomp. D. 19,1, 6, 4)
- The "community of collective hand"