Page 244 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn
P. 244

EARLY MODERN DUTCH LAW available as a result of the same fact'.144
Voet does not see it as a problem, if the actio empti and the aedilician remedies concur.145 The aedilician remedies fulfil their own distinct role as penal remedies. Voet's words echo Cujas' who had likewise upheld the penal character of the aedilician remedies.146
Roman-Frisian law scholars adopted views which differed from those of their Roman- Dutch colleagues. In keeping with the Accursius' distinction between aedilician and civil remedies and seemingly rowing against the current of his time, Wissenbach, stressed precisely the peculiarities of the aedilician remedies. Explicitly referring to Cujas as his source, he states the following:
'The aedilician remedies are arbitrary147 and sometimes penalise double the value, D. 21.1.23.4, D. 21.1.45. The civil remedies are bona fides, and not given for double the price or damages, unless by reason of the buyer being evicted, D. 21.2.37.2. See Cujas' Paratitla to this provision and the Paratitla on the Codex title on eviction. In the event more partners sell a thing which is the property of all of them, the aedilician remedies are granted against the one who has the biggest share in the sale or who's share is not smaller than that of the others. The civil remedies lie for each individual partner in proportion to his share, D. 21.1.44'.148
Wissenbach's pupil Ulrik Huber not only states the features which indicate that the aedilician remedies favoured the buyer but he also provides reasons why the aedilician remedies are as they are:
'..., because those \[sc. the civil remedies\] are envisioned against the greatest fraud, the other \[sc. the aedilician remedies\] to correct inequality, even if there is no fraud, for which reason no distinction is made between knowing and unknowing seller, D. 21.1.1.1, which is a noteworthy and practical difference.'149
144 Voet, Compendium, no. 2, p. 240: 'Et licet ob vitium ex empto quoque actio detur, l. 11. 3. ff. de act. empti, l. 19, 2. in fin. ff. h.t. non tamen ideo hae actiones aedilitiae frustraneae sunt, tum quia saepe pinguiores, praesertim cum ob contumaciam in duplum dantur, l. 23. §. 4. l. 45, ff. h.t. tum etiam, quia infrequens non est, eiusdem rei nomine plures actiones concurrere'.
145 Concurrence occurs e.g., if the seller warranted a corporeal quality in the thing sold, which later proved to be absent. Then both the action on the contract and the aedilician remedies could be brought. The first because of the seller's bad faith. The second on account of a corporeal defect in the thing.
146 Van Eck also stresses the aedilician remedies' penal character. See his Principia, no. 25, p. 37: 'Caeterum concurrunt hae actiones cum actione empti, l. 4. pr., \[D. 21.1.4pr.\] l. 19. §2. h. \[D. 21.1.19.2\], l. II. §. 3 et 5. de act. empt. \[D. 19.1.2.3, 5\] ut tamen actio empti eas actiones minime supervacaneas faciat, utpote quae ob contumatiam dantur in duplum, l. 23. §4, \[D. 21.1.23.4\]. l. 45. h. \[D. 21.1.45\]'.
147 'Actions the formula of which contained the so-called arbitrary clause authorizing the judge to bid the defendant by an arbitrium (arbitratus), an interlocutory order, to satisfy the defendant's claim by restoring or producing (exhivebe) the object claimed...', Berger, Dictionary, sub voce 'actiones arbitrariae'.
148 Wissenbach, Exercitationes, disp. 41, no. 9, p. 409: 'Aedilitia sunt arbitrariae et quandoque penales, in duplum, l. 23. §. si servus, l. Redhibitoria, 45. eod. Civiles sunt bonae fidei, nec in iis sit condemnatio in duplum, nisi evictionis nomine, l. 2. emptori. 37, §. ult. l. Si dictum. 56. D. de evict. Cuj. par. ff. h. et par cod. evict. Plurib. sociis rem communem vendentibus, Aedilitiae dantur in unum, cujus major pars in venditione fuit, aut nulla parte minor: Civiles dantur in singulos pro portione, qua socii sunt, d.l. iustissime, 44, §1',
149 Huber, Praelectiones, to D. 21.1, p. 1080 \[bottom right\]: 'Aedilitiae competunt in unum ex pluribus, qui pro majore parte vendidit, civiles in singulos pro rata, l. 44. §.I. in pr. h. Facilius quoque aedilitiae dantur
 236






















































































   242   243   244   245   246