preview

Case Study On Aquaeductus

Satisfactory Essays

Antonella Carducci Artenisio
Professor Bart Wauters
European Legal History
October 15th, 2015
Aquaeductus Case Study

To my consideration, I’d advice Pamphilius the following. First of all, I’d recognize that when field C was sold to Pamphilius it should have been established what benefits the field had. However, this data is not given to me.

Servitude is an interest disconnected from the proprietorship of an inferior property, being the smaller one the servient estate or inferior and the superior one the dominant estate (which would be field A, the one with the river flow) leaving field C to be the inferior estate in this case. The dominant estate has the Ius in re which is the right in property in common law. This means that the estate has either jus in re propria, the right to use the land in any way the owner likes to within legal parameters; or jus in re aliena which includes security interests for inferior estates. Again, we lack the information on which type of right Catullus would have in this case.

I do believe that Catullus is right to claim that the servitude had extinguished because at some point he owned fields A and C. Although he might not have established that he would take away the water from field C, at that point the field was his, and he could do what he pleased with it and …show more content…

He could get the water back (to the land) if he is successful with this. However it is hard to achieve a change in an already made contract, especially not knowing if at any point the water being there or not being there was not discussed. In the case they did, then he surely could get it because it would make the contract void, as the buyer is getting less for his money, so less value. In the case that it wasn’t discussed or noted at any point in the contract, the chances are very low for Pamphilius to get the

Get Access