Termination of the societas

(b) The bringing of an actio pro socio

Ultimately, of course, it was litis contestatio that extinguished the partnership obligations; but by initiating a lawsuit that necessarily entailed a general settlement of accounts, a socius could be taken to have implicitly renounced the partnership: it was as clear a manifesta­tion of his desire no longer to be associated with the other members of the societas as one might wish to get. An actio pro socio manente societate was thus excluded in classical law.^{[2344] [2345] [2346] This reflects the "isolationist" and libertarian character of Roman jurisprudence.[2347] Of course, societas gave rise to obligations between the socii. But the lawyers were loath to intervene in an existing and functioning unit. Thus, there were no legal rules determining the internal relationship among the partners, and the details of how they set about pursuing their common purpose were left entirely to their mutual good understanding.[2348] It is the same attitude that prevailed, for instance, with regard to the regulation (or rather: non-regulation) of family affairs.[2349] [2350] [2351] [2352] [2353] [2354] As long as the partnership functioned, the intervention of the law was neither necessary nor appropriate. If, on the other hand, there were problems that could no longer be resolved in an amicable manner, the co-operation between the partners had lost its gravitational centre: a type of trust, faith and loyalty that derived from and was reminiscent of the ancient fraternity. Litigation does not represent the pinnacle of good brotherly relations. The spirit of the partnership had broken down. It did not make sense, under these circumstances, to carry on with the empty shell.}

5.