Purchase and Sale Agreement Entered Into With an Underage without the Tutor’s Authorization. A Status Questionis on D. 41,4,2,15

Abstract

The fragment kept in D. 41,4,2,15 offers a case that can be easily understood. The buyer, by virtue of a purchase and sale agreement entered into with an underage, can buy the thing based on usucapio as long as s/he thought that the salesperson was underage. However, the justification Paulo offers: "plus est in re quam in existimatione", opposes to the common solution that links the case with the good faith-belief of the buyer. Therefore, the solution turns out to be unrelated to its motivation. From the commentary, we explain the case as a non domino purchase and sale. Cujacius and others thought that the original text might have stated: "plus est in existimationequam in re", or other similar statements. In the 17th century, José Fernández de Retes submitted an objective reading of the text, which separates the problem presented by the dictum of the text from the buyer's belief. The text was considered to be corrupt in the 20th century.