«Quia simile est, quasi perdituro pecuniam sciens credideris» (D. 17.1.12.11, Ulp. 31 ad ed.)

The essay analyses the phrase «quia simile est, quasi perdituro pecuniam sciens credideris» present in D. 17.1.12.11 (Ulp. 31 ad ed.), which Ulpian inserts as a ratio to deny the actio mandati contraria in favour of someone who knowingly accepted a mandate to provide surety to a prostitute from a lustful adolescent. In particular, it has been found that the Severian jurist, with this expression, intended to refer not to the minor, as has been hypothesized, but, in general, to a subject who was perditurus, that is, a spendthrift, who, therefore, would have been relieved from returning what he had received as a loan, if the lender had been aware of his propensity to waste. Furthermore, the sources would suggest that the condition of perditurus justified particular treatments, aimed on the one hand at protecting their patrimonial position, and on the other at sanctioning those who, despite being aware of their tendency to waste, had nevertheless contracted with them.

本文分析了D.17.1.12.11（Ulp.31 ad ed.）中出现的短语«quia simile est, quasi perdituro pecuniam sciens credideris»，乌尔比安将该短语作为理由，拒绝为明知接受委托、向好色少年为妓女提供担保的人提供反向委托诉讼（actio mandati contraria）。研究特别发现，塞维鲁时期的法学家使用这一表述并非指代此前假设的未成年人，而是泛指挥霍者（perditurus）主体。因此，若出借人明知对方有挥霍倾向仍出借财物，则该挥霍者无需返还所受款项。此外，史料表明，挥霍者（perditurus）的身份状态构成特殊处理的正当理由：一方面旨在保护其财产状况，另一方面则对明知对方挥霍仍与之缔约者予以制裁。