Page 136 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER THREE
price compensation or rescission of the contract was reserved for the party which had caused the prejudice.251
In the Ordenamiento de Alcalá nothing is said at all about what should be proven by whom.252 The same goes for the Nueva Recopilación. In the event a deviation of more than half the thing's just price is established, the party who caused the prejudice has to compensate to the extent that the thing's price again corresponds with its value at the time of the contract's conclusion.253 The Nueva Recopilación adds that bad faith in the sense of deliberate fraud (dolus ex proposito) is only required to rescind contracts in which there is a deviation of price which does not exceed half the just price.
'Whomever may enter into a contract, must fulfil the contract. Even though there is 'deceit' (engaño) of no more than half the just price, the contract is valid, if it is concluded without fraud and in good faith'.254
Apparently, to the compilers of the Nueva Recopilación, a lesion beyond moiety alone was enough to trigger a liability of the party who had caused the prejudice. Yet, they refrain from providing a dogmatic explanation for the remedy in terms of dolus in re ipsa.
However, among early modern Castilian legal scholars who write for the forum externum the views differ somewhat. The positions taken waver between rejecting and accepting the existence of 'fraud in the situation itself' (dolus in re ipsa).
Hevia Bolaño nowhere mentions the doctrine of dolus in re ipsa. He repeats what is found in the Nueva Recopilación. Without going into details about the dogmatic underpinning of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety, he simply accepts its existence in sales.255 He also adds that in order to grant a remedy for a prejudice of less than half the thing's just price subjective fraud is required.256 Hence, it seems that Hevia Bolaño finds a prejudice consisting of more than half in itself enough to grant a remedy. Piñel similarly confirms the view that the remedy for lesion beyond moiety has nothing to do with fraud.
251 See 2.3.1.
252 Ordenamiento 17.1, in: Los códigos españoles, vol. 1, pp. 450-451: Si el vendedor ó comprador de la
cosa dixiere que fue engannado en mas de meytat del derecho prescio... mandamos que el comprador sea tenudo a complir el derecho prescio que valia la cosa, ó de la dejar al vendedor, tornandole el vendedor el prescio, que rescibio, è el vendedor debe tornar al comprador lo que mas rescibio de la meytat del derecho prescio, ó de tomarla cosa que vendio, è tornar el prescio que rescibio.
253 Novísima Recopilación 10.1.2 (= Nueva Recopilación 5.11.1, 6), in: Los códigos españoles, vol. 9, p. 303: 'Si el vendedor ó comprador de la cosa dixere, que fué engañado en mas de la mitad del justo precio... mandamos, que... el vendedor debe tornar al comprador lo demas del derecho percio que que \[sic\] le llevó, ó de tornar la cosa que vendió, y tornar el precio que recibió: y este mismo debe ser guardado en las rentas y en los cambios, y en los otros contratos semejables...'.
254 Novésima Recopilación 10.1.3 (= Nueva Recopilación 5.2.1), in: Los códigos españoles, vol. 9, p. 303: 'qualquier que se obligare..., aunque haya engaño en mas de la mitad del justo precio, si fueren celebrados los tales contratos sin dolo y con buena fe, valan... '.
255 Hevia Bolaño, Laberinto, 1.12.31, p. 130: 'En la venta y compra de las mercaderias regularmente ha lugar el engaño en mas de la mitad del justo precio, para suplirle o deshazer el contracto como en las demas cosas, conforme una ley Recopilada \[Nueva Recopilación 5.11.1\]'.
256 Hevia Bolaño, Laberinto, 1.12.35, p. 131: 'en el fuero exterior judicial, no se puede pedir, salvo si sucedio por dolo o malicia del vendedor o el comprador, conforme unas leyes de Partida \[SP 5.5.57 and 62\] y Recopilacion \[Nueva Recopilación 5.11.2\]...', idem, 1.12.36, p. 210.
124