This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

If someone has granted another a thing belonging to another for use, a commodatum is contracted. For we look at the nature of the benefit of the loan provided, not at the nature of the person of the lender.
Even habitation the right to live in a house, as Julian rightly thought, falls under the commodatum.
Excluded are those things which are consumed by use, and whose utility (says the Jurisconsult) cannot exist without consumption. This is by way of distinction from a mutuum a loan of fungible goods like money or grain.
Unless you say they were granted for the sake of display and ostentation. For in that case, Gaius testifies that both money and other things can be rightly lent.
Furthermore, a twofold action arises from the commodatum: direct and contrary. The direct action is given to the lender against the borrower or their heirs, so that when the use and the time prescribed have ended, the thing may be restored safe and intact.
I said it is also given against the heirs. This is to be understood in the sense that they were heirs only to the extent of their inheritance, unless they are sued for their own action or happen to have the capacity to restore the whole thing, for then they are condemned for the total amount Latin: in solidum.
Therefore, a thing that has been damaged should not be returned, for the jurist has rightly said: "That is not seen as returned which is returned in a worse condition."
If, however, that loss, whatever it may be, did not happen through his own fault—even the slightest fault (for he is generally responsible for this)—but by some fatal accident, such as fire, ruin, or shipwreck,