El fragmento conservado en D. 41,4,2,15 ofrece un caso de fácil comprensión. El adquirente, en virtud de una compraventa celebrada con un impúber, puede adquirir la cosa por usucapio si acaso pensó que el vendedor era púber. Pero la justificación que ofrece Paulo: "plus est in re quam in existimatione", se opone a la solución habitual, que vincula el caso con la buena fe-creencia del comprador. Por tanto, la solución resulta desvinculada de su motivación. Desde la Glosa se explicó el caso como de una compraventa a non domino. Para Cujacius y otros pensaron que el texto original debía decir: "plus est in existimatione quam in re", u otras formulaciones similares. En el siglo XVII, José Fernández de Retes, inauguró una lectura objetiva del pasaje, que separa el problema presentado por el dictum del texto de la creencia del comprador. En el siglo XX se consideró corrupto el pasajeThe fragment kept in D. 41,4,2,15 offers a case that can be easily understood. The buyer, by virtue of a purchase and sale agreement entered into with an underage, can buy the thing based on usucapio as long as s/he thought that the salesperson was underage. However, the justification Paulo offers: "plus est in re quam in existimatione", opposes to the common solution that links the case with the good faith-belief of the buyer. Therefore, the solution turns out to be unrelated to its motivation. From the commentary, we explain the case as a non domino purchase and sale. Cujacius and others thought that the original text might have stated: "plus est in existimationequam in re", or other similar statements. In the 17th century, José Fernández de Retes submitted an objective reading of the text, which separates the problem presented by the dictum of the text from the buyer's belief. The text was considered to be corrupt in the 20th century.