Abstract

This article examines the Athenian law of contracts as illuminated by the particular case of Hypereides 3, Against Athenogenes, in which the prosecutor, Epicrates, seeks to void a contract of sale on the grounds that the defendant, Athenogenes, has employed fraud in its formation. Part 1 compares and analyzes the attested variants on the general contract law cited at Hypereides 3.13 and concludes that Hypereides' version is most likely to be correct. Part 2 discusses modifications of the right to contract created by additional legislation and addresses the value and significance of Epicrates' arguments from analogy. Part 3 offers an explanation of the strategy behind Epicrates' attribution of particular laws to Solon.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
2575-7199
Print ISSN
2575-7180
Pages
pp. 89-122
Launched on MUSE
2009-05-24
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.