The meaning of metus causa

The exact meaning of the term "metus causa" as used in the praetor's edict ("quod metus causa gestum erit...") has given rise to scholarly dispute. Traditionally, the praetor was understood to disapprove of acts²⁶ which had been caused by fear;²⁷ but it has also been argued that the phrase refers to what has been done with the aim of causing fear.²⁸ More recently, a third interpretation has gained ground which regards—more widely—all acquisitions as being covered by the praetorian veto which have been made as a consequence of fear.²⁹ In other words: "metus causa" is not to be understood from the point of view of either the extortioner or the person who has been compelled to act, but from the position of whoever acquires something on the basis of duress: irrespective of whether he was himself responsible for the other party's predicament, whether he is merely exploiting it or whether he has acted in good faith.

This latter opinion ties in best with the fact that the actio quod metus causa did not aim at penalizing extortionary behaviour ("... haec actio... [non] personam vim facientis coerceat... "), and that even bona fide third parties could therefore be liable.³¹ If A has forced B to perform to C, who in turn sells the object to D, neither C nor D has acted "because of fear". Nevertheless, D's acquisition can be traced back to the fact that B once had to make a performance under compulsion; in this sense, it is (still) based on metus and can thus be regarded as something "quod metus causa factum est".³²

<< | >>

↑

Source: Zimmermann R.. The Law of Obligations. Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Juta & Co, Ltd,1992. — 1241 p.. 1992

The meaning of metus causa

More on the topic The meaning of metus causa: