Omnis autem actio vacare debet temeritate et neglegentia. Kilka uwag na marginesie pracy Dominiki Mróz, Prawo rzymskie. Testy dla studentów, Warszawa 2009

Abstract

The main purpose of the text was to raise a few objections about the handbook of D. Mróz. It has been underlined that the preponderance of mistakes disqualifies this book as a recommended one for the students. A student who refuses to repeat some parts of Roman law with this publication will not be as much disappointed as that who followed the view of Roman law presented by the author. D. Mróz should have had to put more emphasis on preparing her questions and cases in a more meticulous way. It is unthinkable that a student has to decide which answer is correct when more than one seems to be proper. Furthermore, the variety of questions and cases referring to property law and the law of obligation seems to be insufficient. It is in vain to look for a rule superficies solo cedit or nemo plus iuris in alium transferre potest, quam ipse haberet. An inquisitive student will be disappointed by a quantity of questions concerning to e.g. obligations ex delicto. This publication requires a thorough amendments, as well a review by a competent Romanist. When the underlined mistakes are eliminated by the author, the book will be acceptable.