The reasons for a possible ownership transfer of the material given by the locator to the conductor and the dogmatic construction of that transfer in D.19.2.31 are still controversially discussed. The transfer is commonly seen as a late-republican method of extending the liability of the conductor to accidents caused by vis major. The study tries to bring evidence that the sources actually do not verify that theory: The purpose of the transfer was rather to enable the conductor to exchange the given material or to change its structure in accordance with his contractual obligations without the risk of being confronted with the actio furti (resp. the actio oneris aversi) or with charges pursuant to the third chapter of the lex Aquilia.
Besides this, the study provides an interpretation of the actio oneris aversi and a number of considerations regarding Alfenus’ controversial authorship of D.19.2.31.