Page 201 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn
P. 201

  Legal
th
186 Others, however, nuance this somewhat arbitrary
humanists of the 16
CHAPTER FOUR
early modern scholastic foundations of the remedy seem to have been well-established among 16th century humanist scholars. As we will see, later natural law scholars contrariwise tend to argue that Roman law had always known the requirement of fairness in exchange and paper over the role early modern scholastics had played in adapting the remedy in C. 4.44.2 for contemporary usage.
On the other hand, we observed earlier that medieval civil law scholars had already adopted and prepared the remedy for use in contemporary practice of the secular courts at about the same time in which it was accepted in canon law doctrine.184 early modern humanist scholarship can thus also be seen as continuing medieval ius commune tradition concerning lesion beyond moiety. However, it underpins the remedy in a different fashion with arguments from moral theology.
4.3.1 Presumption of fraud
185 Since this rule of Justinianic law conflicts with the demand of fairness in exchange, it had been generally acknowledged in medieval and Castilian law that this freedom of bargaining was limited to prices within the limits set by C. 4.44.2. In other words, as soon as the price offered was less than half the thing's just value or the price asked exceeded the thing's just price by
more than a half time, the sales could be rescinded or the price adjusted.
 Sixteenth century humanist scholars discuss the remedy for lesion beyond moiety within a
 firmly established framework according to which seller and buyer are to a certain degree
 allowed to deceive each other with regard to price bargaining.
 century similarly curb the freedom of bargaining. In
 keeping with Bartolus some presume fraud 'in the situation itself' (dolus in re ipsa), if the
 limit set by C. 4.44.2 is passed.
 184 See 2.3.1.
185 Molinaeus, Tractatus commerciorum, no. 170, p. 185: 'Quod autem quaedam leges dictunt, in his
commutativis naturaliter licere seu concessum esse invicem circumvenire, non hoc pro fraudationis autoramento accipiendum est'; Sichardus, Dictata, to C. 4.58.2, no. 4, p. 461: 'Ad hoc est dicendum, permitti quidem contrahentibus ut se, decipiant, dummodo illa deceptio non sit enormis'; Giphanius, Explanatio, to C. 4.44, p. 303 \[right column\].
186
 Gail, Observationes, 2.147, no. 7, p. 600: '...quia ex enormi, vel enormissima laesione, puta si ultra
 dimidium decepta sit, dolus praesumitur...'; Sichardus, Dictata, to C. 4.58.2, no. 4, p. 461; Molinaeus,
 Tractatus commerciorum, no. 171, p. 186: 'sed ea latitudo et indulgentia non eo protrahenda est, ut quid
 dolo, fraude vel praeter bonam fidem admittere liceat, sed restringitur ad circumventiones, quae
 naturaliter, hoc est, propter naturalem illam facilitatem vel imbecillitatem hominum irrepunt, citra omnem
 dolum et fraudem et ut nostri docto. apte dictunt, re ipsa'; Molinaeus, Tractatus commerciorum, no. 173,
 p. 187: 'Hactenus deceptionem permittit dicta lex \[C. 4.44.2\], videlicet usque ad dimidiam iusti precii seu
 aequivalentis inclusive, sed non ultra dimidiam'; Mynsinger, Observationum centuriae, 4.73, no. 9, p. 193:
 '... leges permittunt decipere usque ad dimidium iustum precii'; Wesenbecius, In pandectas, to. D. 18.5,
 no. 4, p. 220; Wesenbecius, Tractatus et responsa, vol. 6, cons. 262, no. 41, p. 343: 'Nam ex sola tam
 enormis laesione, quae superat dimidium justi pretii, dolus re ipsa subest et arguitur'.
  Zasius and
 Schrader somewhat confusingly hold that an enormous lesion brings
  fraud in the thing itself (dolus in re
 ipsa
  )',
  whereas a more than enormous
 lesion beyond moiety presumes 'premeditated fraud (dolus ex
 proposito). Cf. Zasius, Consilia, vol. 1, cons. 18, no.
  16, p. 167: '...enormem laesionem, quae dolum re
 ipsa continet'; idem, no. 17, p. 168: 'quod in enormissima laesione dolus ex proposito concurrere
 praesumitur allegat not. per doctor. in d. l. si quis cum aliter \[D. 21?\] et in l. societatem, ยง arbitrorum, ff.
 pro socio. \[D. 17.2.76\]'; Schrader, Consilia, cons. 1, no. 96, p. 48: '...dolum ex proposito intervenisse et
 contractui causam dedisse probatur ex laesione enormissima et valde excessiva'; Donellus, Ad codicis
191






















































   199   200   201   202   203