Quasi-delict as a term used to denote delictual obligations arising from fault rather than intent is well-established in Scots law. It owes its currency mainly to its use by the writer George Joseph Bell in his Principles of the Law of Scotland which first appeared in 1829. His probable source was Heineccius's Elementa iuris civilis. He was thus adopting a distinction between delict and quasi-delict which was commonly recognised among Civilian writers, In that particular sense it has come under criticism, among other things because as a general classification it gives no place to strict liability, but the acceptance of the term into Scots law is not in doubt. What is in doubt is the place of the Roman law obligations quasi ex delicto as set out in Justinian's Institutes, in particular the actio de effusis vel deiectis and the actio de positis vel suspensis both of which have come under some scrutiny in a recent case. These particular examples raise interesting questions relating to the reception of Roman law into Scots law. In particular they bring out the need to distinguish between Roman law and Civil Law, a distinction which is often blurred, and they bring out the importance of distinguishing between the appearance and the reality of Roman or Civilian influence. What appears to be Roman because expressed in terms of Roman law may turn out to be something different when examined more closely.