Most of us would like to think that our legal education has taught us to think analytically and clearly. Analytical thinking has its dangers. There is, for example, a tendency to translate practical distinctions of real value into rigid classifications which are more of an impediment than an aid to clear thinking. I think that there is a danger of this kind in the current debate in legal education.
The pacium de non petendo is an agreement which parties to an obligation enter into to modify or extinguish the obligation, or merely to provide a temporary defence to an action based on the obligation. This is achieved by one party (the creditor) agreeing not to sue the other one (the debtor) either temporarily or permanently.