Roma Hukuku'nda varolmayan bir borcun ifası nedeniyle sebebsiz zenginleşme (condictio in debiti)
Başlık çevirisi mevcut değil.
- Tez No: 37334
- Danışmanlar: PROF.DR. ÖZCAN ÇELEBİCAN
- Tez Türü: Doktora
- Konular: Hukuk, Law
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Borçlar hukuku, Roma hukuku, Sebepsiz zenginleşme, Law of obligations, Roman law, Unjustifiable enrichment
- Yıl: 1994
- Dil: Türkçe
- Üniversite: Ankara Üniversitesi
- Enstitü: Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Sayfa Sayısı: Belirtilmemiş.
Özet
Özet yok.
Özet (Çeviri)
160 SUMMARY Our thesis on“Unjust Enrichment as a result of the payment of something that is not owed”is comprised of two chapters [Condictio Indebiti as called in the Roman Law). In the first chapter of our thesis, we elaborate on the legal nature of debts resulting from unjust enrichment, the parties of the obligation, the subsequent condictio and the different types of condictio. Additionally, in this chapter, we discuss how the payment of something that is not owed was dealt with in Roman ius Civile, under which circumstances the performance (solutum) of something not due (indebitum) gives rise to a right of recovery by means of a condictio, and what types of payments wouldn't be deemed as the payment of something that is not owed. The payment of something that is not owed, as where one through ignorance or error of fact pays money to another, performs such as may be contracted, or does any other service, which was believed to be owed is emphasised as one of the main requisites for Condictio Indebiti. We also explain the case in which the performer knows he was not bound to make such a payment or to perform as contracted for, then he is presumed to have intended to donate, and cannot recover. In the same chapter after the explanation of theories regarding the reasons why Condictio Indebiti arises, we discuss the underlying factors that cause Condictio Indebiti to be classified as a specific type of unjust enrichment. Further in the161 chapter, we explore the necessity of the justification for the payment, performance and also transfer of title. The second chapter, mainly consists of our interpretation and evaluation of the writings of the jurists, especially those of the Classical period and during the lustinianus time, on the concept of and reasons for the recovery. This chapter also includes a comparison of the Turkish Law of Obligations and the Roman Law regarding the payment of something that is not owed. Finally, in this chapter we discuss with whom the burden of proof should rest in the case of a lawsuit concerning the recovery. We conclude the thesis with an overall evaluation and interpretation of Condictio Indebiti in Roman Law and the Turkish Law of Obligations.
Benzer Tezler
- Roma Hukuku'nda Lex Rhodia de Iactu çerçevesinde müşterek avarya kurumu
Başlık çevirisi yok
MEHTAP ÜNAN
- Roma Hukuku'nda iniuria ve çağdaş Türk Hukuku'nda kişilik hakkının korunması
Başlık çevirisi yok
ERKAN KÜÇÜKGÜNGÖR
- Roma Hukuku'nda yardımcı şahsı seçmede kusur nedeniyle sözleşmeden doğan sorumluluk (Culpa in eligendo)
Başlık çevirisi yok
DİLER TAMER GÜVEN
- Roma Hukuku'nda ve Türk Hukuku'nda hizmet akdi
Employment contracts in Roman Law and Turkish Law
Z. SELDAĞ CEYLAN GÜNEŞ
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
1999
HukukAnkara ÜniversitesiÖzel Hukuk Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. ÖZCAN KARADENİZ ÇELEBİCAN