ZAKRES ZASTOSOWANIA EDYKTU ‘NAUTAE, CAUPONES, STABULARII UT RECEPTA RESTITUANT’

THE RANGE OF APPLICATION OF THE EDICT ‘NAUTAE, CAUPONES, STABULARII UT RECEPTA RESTITUANT’Summary This article focuses on the range of application of the edict ‘nautae, caupones, stabularii ut recepta restituant’. The regulation introduced no fault liability for things received for safekeeping by seaman and innkeepers (D. 4,9,3,1). Most scholars argue that the so called receptum nautarum was a separate guarantee contract. This interpretation limits the scope of the edict only to enforcing a contractual obligation. It seems also unfounded. The roman jurist never used the term receptum nautarum. Especially they never require entering into a separate guarantee contract as a basis for the liability of seaman and innkeepers. In their commentaries it is always recipere in the basic meaning of receiving something for safekeeping that triggers the liability. The questions discussed in the legal texts Focus only on following problems: the purpose of the edict and the necessity of entrusting the property to seamen and innkeepers (D. 4,9,1,1); who is entitled to receive the property for safekeeping (D. 4,9,1,2, D. 4,9,1,3); the question if the edict relates also to those things that are additional to the main merchandise received for safekeeping (D. 4,9,1,6); how should the property be entrusted and when the goods are seen as received for safekeeping by the seamen or innkeepers (D. 4,9,1,8); the question if the edict relates to property received only on the ship for transport or also to merchandise received on the shore (D. 4,9,3 pr). The idea of receptum nautarum being a guarantee contract is mainly based on one sentence form Ulpian commentary regarding the special actio furti adversus nautas caupones stabularios (D. 47,5,1,4). It is possible to interpret this text in a coherent way with all other fragments that connect the liability of the entrepreneurs with the mere fact of receiving something for safekeeping. As a result of this study it is plausible to assume that the praetor addressed in the new regulation the problem of merchandise entrusted to seamen and innkeepers without any legal guarantee. It is certain that from the first century A.D. the liability of discussed entrepreneurs was based only on the fact of receiving goods for safekeeping.