The Commodatum loan is a contractual relationship often used in the health sector. That is the case, for example. B, refrigerators or other devices made available to hospitals for the storage of medicines for the storage of medicines for the drugs in which they participate. This also applies to devices that are loaned for sample analysis or for the administration of certain treatments. In the judgment we are considering, the Supreme Court reminds us that the commo date agreement is one whereby one party freely yields an object to the other party, so that that party can use it for a certain period of time or for a specified use. Such a relationship creates obligations only for the beneficiary. These obligations include retention and return when the agreed period ends or when the use for which it was awarded ends. The Court also recalls that, although the agreed time or use is not complete, the party who lent the object can only recover it in an emergency. In the absence of agreement on the period or use, the Supreme Court held that the party who lent the object could recover it at any time, according to the rules governing the concussion date contract, without the need for a specific reason. Therefore, the court declares that the loan is terminated for use, so that the land user is obliged to evacuate it.

It is therefore important to bear in mind that, in the date agreements of denko, the agreed terms will be the determining factor in the recovery of the allocated equipment. Justinian identifies four types of real contracts – contracts in re (one thing) – Mutuum, Commodatum, Depositum and Pignus. All four together was an agreement and delivery of a res corporalis. [1] They are at odds with consensual and inominatory contracts. [1] Actual contracts were of limited importance, although they are significantly represented in the works of lawyers. If a stipulatio were to be created to cover interest, then it could also be used to cover other elements of the transaction. [2] It appears that the applicant was maintained according to the culpa lata standard. This meant that the applicant was liable if he was considered gross negligence: negligence, to the extent that one could almost assume disbelief.

Culpa lata therefore resembled dolus (“scam”). [10] In fact, some commentators consider dolus to be the appropriate standard. [13] The parties reached an agreement to vary the level of care expected by the applicant. It was expected that an applicant would return the matter on request. Adequate “wear” was acceptable. The applicant was also required to hand over all the accumulations of the thing, as a toddler born to a deposited animal. [14] The applicant was liable for damage caused by the deposited object and transportation costs if the place where things were to be returned deviated from where it was borrowed. The actio depositi was available to the applicant to demand the return of his goods, with double damage if the damage had been caused in an emergency, such as in the event of a fire or riot.