Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] [533]
Dig. 12.6.23.2 · Justinian's Digest · Roman Empire
Roman Lawroman-lawRoman LawCondictio indebiti (unjust enrichment)
Issue
May the payer recover the sum if the recipient was in good faith?
Held
Yes, condictio indebiti lies if the payment was made by mistake and the debt did not exist.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment), then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] is included in the Roman Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment). The reported citation is Dig. 12.6.23.2, and the decision is associated with Justinian's Digest. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] is: A person who mistakenly pays a debt not owed seeks recovery. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Roman Law, use the facts to explain why Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment) was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] is reported as a decision of Justinian's Digest. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
May the payer recover the sum if the recipient was in good faith?
Held
Yes, condictio indebiti lies if the payment was made by mistake and the debt did not exist.
Ratio Decidendi
Mistaken payment of an undue debt is recoverable unless the recipient changed position in reliance.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: Mistaken payment of an undue debt is recoverable unless the recipient changed position in reliance. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Roman Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment); if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] is a case to use when a Roman Law answer needs an authority on Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment). Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] (Dig. 12.6.23.2) strengthens a Roman Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Mistaken payment of an undue debt is recoverable unless the recipient changed position in reliance. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as May the payer recover the sum if the recipient was in good faith? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
roman-law
Roman Law
Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment)
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment) in Roman Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Condictio indebiti (unjust enrichment), then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2] in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with A person who mistakenly pays a debt not owed seeks recovery., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.