Innominate contracts

Also found in: Legal.
(Law) in the Roman law, contracts without a specific name.

See also: Innominate

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by G. & C. Merriam Co.
References in periodicals archive ?
Traditional American courses in contracts did not systematically explore a series of nominate contracts, nor did the courses typically distinguish nominate from innominate contracts. Instead, the courses frequently explored universal norms without distinguishing one contract from another.
(97.) On nominate and innominate contracts in Louisiana jurisprudence, see generally Herman, Detrimental Reliance in Louisiana Law, supra note 10, at 728-32.
These sentences make clear, too, that sale-purchase differs from donation and liberal promise as well as from all other contracts in which an interchange of things other than commodities and prices takes place, for example, in exchange, loan, and all innominate contracts. Similarly, lease and hire are different because the thing that is said to be let or hired is not given in return for a price but only conceded for use, even though it might seem as if the use itself is sold in a certain sense because it is conceded in return for a price.
note: Innominate contracts are those that lack any special nomination or classification in the law.
The second meaning has a narrower scope, and refers to the innominate contract expressed in the phrase do ut des, that is, one thing is exchanged for a different one, both if the first is considered indeterminate as individual, but specifically or generically distinct, as if both are considered individually determinate.
It also uses the word exchange to refer to many contracts, which are not specifically exchanges but are, rather, buying, renting, and other innominate contracts. So, to exchange (as the vernacular understands it) is every kind of contract of money for money, which is not gratuitous, be it a barter, a purchase, a deposit, or anything else.
It is more of an innominate contract, which in many things differs from the above mentioned.
We declare that the same set of scales and measurements should be used to weigh and measure the justice of the exchange by buying as the exchange by bartering, which is another innominate contract. Buying, on the one hand, and bartering--which is an innominate contract (3)--and the other innominate contracts on the other, are different because buying is a contract specifically provided for by the law, (4) while the others are not.
(66) This is not a true doctrine because everyday the opposite is done from Medina to Lisbon and Flanders and from there to Medina, the practice of which is licit whether by way of real purchase or by way of barter or other innominate contracts, as we go on to prove below.
(10) It is possible for the person who has money in Medina to buy or try getting by way of barter and exchange other money that is in Flanders for less than what it is worth over there, and then obtain it there, and buy or try getting by barter and other innominate contracts with it other money that is in Medina for less than what it is worth there and in this way increase his assets.