The strict typification inherent in the Roman contract system was reflected in the classification of contracts by the way they were concluded: verbal, literal, real, consensual. The Roman classification of contracts reflects the long historical experience of the legal regulation of civil circulation. Gradually, a correspondence was reached between the typical interest and the recognized form of his satisfaction, which corresponded to the “social value of free individual will determination”.
I.A. Pokrovsky believed that the Roman system of obligations was far from flawless theoretically: “... Perhaps the most characteristic drawback of this system is its complete absence of obligations arising from unilateral promises - for example, from a public promise of a reward for something (for finding a lost thing) etc.)". Pokrovsky noted that, having undergone some changes in some parts in the near future, the system of obligations did not change its spirit and basic principles. Moreover, he mentioned a number of laws that led to a deterioration of the system. E. Anners in his work “History of European Law” also criticized the development of certain types of obligations in ancient Rome (for example, collateral agreements).
Consider the above opinions. What is your own idea of ​​the Roman system of treaties (contracts) and the level of its development?

After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2009-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.