Definition
A Latin maxim of contract law holding that an obligation arising from contract or quasi-contract is dissolved by the same means through which it was created. The full formulation reads: *Eisdem modis dissolvitur obligatio quae nascitur ex contractu, vel quasi, quibus contrahitur* — "An obligation which arises from contract, or quasi-contract, is dissolved in the same ways in which it is contracted."
The principle carries practical weight: if mutual consent creates an obligation, mutual consent can extinguish it; if a formality (such as a seal or writing) was required to form the obligation, the same formality is presumptively required to discharge it. The maxim functions as a structural rule of symmetry in the law of obligations — the mode of dissolution mirrors the mode of creation.
---
Common Confusion
The maxim is sometimes read as an absolute rule, but it is better understood as a presumption. Courts and commentators have recognized numerous discharge mechanisms — performance, accord and satisfaction, novation, frustration, operation of law — that do not precisely mirror the original mode of formation. The maxim articulates a general organizing principle, not a rigid procedural requirement. Researchers should be cautious about treating historical uses of this phrase as authority for a strict formal-symmetry rule in modern doctrine.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical and theoretical contexts. Researchers will encounter it most often in older treatises on contract and obligations, in civil-law influenced commentary, and in passages tracing the Roman law foundations of common law contract doctrine.
The maxim derives from Fleta (lib. 2, c. 60, § 19), a late thirteenth-century English legal treatise heavily influenced by Roman and canon law. That lineage is significant: the principle reflects civilian thinking about the symmetry of obligations, and its adoption into English legal writing marks a point of intersection between common law and civil law traditions. When researching the intellectual history of contract discharge doctrine, this maxim serves as a useful marker of that crossover.
In practice, the maxim surfaces in three research contexts: (1) historical discussions of how contracts could be rescinded or annulled, particularly by mutual agreement or release under seal; (2) theoretical treatments of quasi-contract and the law of obligations; and (3) comparative law scholarship examining how Roman-law concepts were absorbed into English and American jurisprudence.
Because the maxim is stated in Latin and appears in a compact, formulaic style, it is easy to overlook in full-text searches. Researchers should search variant spellings and truncations — *eisdem modis*, *dissolvitur obligatio* — as well as the Fleta citation itself to locate connected discussions in older sources.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) reproduces the maxim verbatim with attribution to Fleta, lib. 2, c. 60, § 19. The entry is definitional rather than analytical — Black's records the phrase and its translation without elaborating on scope or limitations.
The Fleta attribution is important. Fleta is a late-medieval English legal compilation, and its invocation here signals that the maxim had achieved enough currency in the English legal tradition to be cited as authority, even though its roots are plainly Roman. The choice of Fleta over a classical Roman source suggests that Black's (and the tradition it reflects) was anchoring the maxim in English, not purely continental, legal authority.
Historical dictionaries do not address the tension between the maxim's symmetry principle and the growing recognition in nineteenth- and twentieth-century contract law that obligations may be discharged in ways that bear no formal resemblance to their creation — frustration of purpose being the clearest modern example. That gap is worth flagging: the maxim belongs to a period when the categories of formation and dissolution were conceived more rigidly than modern doctrine permits.
---
Jurisdictional Note
As a Latin maxim of general contract law, *eisdem modis dissolvitur* is not tied to any single jurisdiction. Its influence is felt most directly in jurisdictions with significant civilian influence (Louisiana, Quebec, mixed common-law/civil-law systems) and in academic commentary. It is not regularly cited as operative doctrine in modern American or English courts.
---