Definition
Latin: "consideration given and not followed [by the expected event]." A civil law term denoting the legal basis for recovering something transferred in anticipation of a specific event or condition that ultimately did not occur. The giver transferred property or value not as a gift and not as payment for something already received, but in contemplation of a future event — and when that event failed to materialize, the law provided a remedy to reclaim what was given.
The phrase names both a legal concept and the action arising from it: an action to recover a transfer made on a causa — a purpose or condition — that was never fulfilled. If A transfers property to B in anticipation of a marriage, a contractual performance, or another defined future event, and that event does not follow, A may bring the action causa data et non secuta to recover the transfer.
Why It Matters in Research
This term sits at the intersection of Roman civil law, unjust enrichment, and the law of failed consideration — and researchers can easily miss the connections if they treat it as a standalone Latin phrase rather than a doctrinal concept.
The action described here is a condictio — specifically, a condictio causa data causa non secuta, one of the recognized condictiones in Roman law by which a plaintiff could recover a transfer made for a purpose that was never realized. Researchers working in Roman law sources, canon law materials, or early civil law treatises should look for the condictio form; the abbreviated phrase causa data et non secuta is the shorthand used in later English legal dictionaries, but primary civil law sources will frame it under condictio or under Digest 12.4 directly.
In common law jurisdictions, the operative modern concept is failure of consideration or, in unjust enrichment doctrine, failure of basis. English equity absorbed the underlying function of this action centuries ago. A researcher tracing the intellectual lineage of unjust enrichment claims — particularly conditional transfers or deposits made pending a contingency — will find causa data et non secuta is the Roman ancestor of those doctrines. The concept is live in comparative law scholarship and in jurisdictions with mixed civil/common law heritage (Louisiana, Quebec, South Africa, Scotland).
The term appears in English legal dictionaries largely as a reference point rather than as operative pleading language. It would not appear in English or American court filings except by way of historical analogy or scholarly citation. Researchers using Law Mind's historical corpus should not expect to find it in pleading books or practice manuals; look instead in civilian treatises, comparative law commentary, and the earlier equity literature where Roman law concepts were still cited as persuasive authority.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Burrill's are in verbatim agreement on this entry, which signals that both drew from a common source — almost certainly an earlier civilian lexicon or a shared reading of the Digest. Both identify the action's purpose (reclaiming a transfer when the contemplated event did not occur) and both cite Digest 12.4 and Codex 4.6 as the primary sources. These citations are reliable anchors: Digest 12.4 addresses the condictio causa data causa non secuta directly, and Codex 4.6 addresses related recovery actions.
Burrill adds a reference to Cases Tempore Talbot (p. 122), a volume of English Chancery cases from the 1730s, suggesting the concept had some traction in early English equity practice. Black's omits this reference. Neither dictionary situates the term within the broader condictio taxonomy or connects it explicitly to unjust enrichment — a gap that modern research must fill from other sources. Both definitions are accurate as far as they go but thin; neither dictionary was writing for civilian practitioners, and the entry reads as definitional rather than analytical.
Jurisdictional Note
The term is operative doctrine, not mere historical curiosity, in civil law jurisdictions. Louisiana's law of unjust enrichment and the law of Quebec draw on the same Roman foundation. In common law jurisdictions, the concept has been absorbed into failure of consideration and unjust enrichment doctrine without retaining the Latin label.