Page 235 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn
P. 235

CHAPTER FIVE
the remedy for price reduction is the one stated in the aedilician edict, sc. one year, he fixes an altogether new period within which the remedy for returning the thing should be brought: one year as well.101
'the seller has the choice either to return the thing and claim back the paid sum or, if he wants to keep the thing, he can claim repayment of a part of the paid price of how much less he would have bought the thing. Or he can, if he so wishes, claim repayment of how much less the thing was really worth less. Yet, this choice lasts only for one year'.102
The last phrase 'yet, this choice last only for one year (doch deze keur duirt maar een jaer)' seems to refer to both the remedy for price reduction as to that for returning the thing ('heeft de koper de keure...'). The six-month period as stated in the aedilician edict mentioned by Vinnius and Van Leeuwen is nowhere to be found.
Moreover, Grotius similarly assigns a one year limitation period to a rescission on the grounds of fraud.103 One might imagine a situation in which the seller does not live up to promises made because of which he bargained a higher selling price or in which he concealed a defect. Stating a one year limitation under such circumstances, Grotius ignores that the applicable ius commune-civil remedy on the contract for fraud had a perpetual character. A one year limitation period seems to have become Grotius' standard for remedies with which one claimed damages, whatever their pedigree.104
According to later interpreters of Grotius' Inleidinge, this one year period was derived from local statutory law. They base themselves on the following passages in Grotius work:105
'Admittedly, according to Roman law obligations do not die after a certain period.... however, on closer look to what has been applied of old here with us, one shall see that according to our law property is acquired through prescription... In the same keeping, debts die due to lapse of time and, in accordance with some plain statutes, debts are then considered paid, so that no claim can arise from them. \[3\] This limitation with us is commonly accepted after one third of 100 years has passed... \[6\] However, some debts die after a shorter period... \[8\]'.106
101 Also noted by Krzeminsky, 'Ad Edictum', p. 703.
102 Grotius, Inleidinge, 3.15.7, pp. 245–246: '... heeft de kooper de keure, of hy de zaeck wil wedergheven,
ende sijn koop-geld weder-eisschen zoude; dan of hy wil de zaeck behoudende, eisschen wedergeving van zulckes deels des koopgelds, als hy de zaeck minder zoude hebben ghekocht, ofte zoo hy wil, zulckes deels als de zaeck inder daed minder waerdig was: doch deze keur duirt maar een jaer'.
103 Grotius, Inleidinge, 3.17.4, p. 250: '... Ten vierde, indien de kooper door des verkoopers bedrog... iets gebreckelicks heeft gekocht, soo kan de koop ten versoucke vande kooper vernietigt werden... ende den kooper binnens jaers zulcks verzoeckt gelijck hier vooren gezeit is \[3.15.7\]'.
104 Hallebeek & Decock, ‘Pre-contractual duties’, p. 128: 'In his day the prevailing opinion was probably that the civil actio empti, when used for price reduction, prescribed in one year',
105 The reader should note that Grotius considers prescription of things and limitation of obligations as one and the same phenomenon.
106 Grotius, Inleidinge, 3.46.2-8, p. 323: 'Wel is waer, dat nae de Roomsche rechten de verbintenissen door de tijd niet en vergaen:... maer naerder inziende 't gunt by ons van ouds is verstaen, zalmen bevinden dat ghelijck by ons den eigendom zelve door verjaringe werd bekomen... dat oock alzoo de schuld door 't verloop dadelick vergaet, ende gelijck eenige wetten duidelick spreecken werd gehouden voor
 227




















































































   233   234   235   236   237