Page 248 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

EARLY MODERN DUTCH LAW
For that reason, the action on the lease contract appears to suffice under these circumstances'.164
The damage caused by a leased item suffering from defects turns out less than the damages caused when a defective thing has been sold. After all, the lessee can simply stop paying the rent and return the leased item. Hence, for defects in the leased object, the action on the lease contract suffices, although that action could only be brought when the lessor had supplied something that could not be used for the purpose for which it was meant.165 Voet incidentally dismisses Cujas' Greek Codex text.
'C. 4.65.34, which, among other things, moved Cujas in his Observationes166 to think that the aedilician edict should be extended to lease as well, is not posing an objection. This is so, because this provision simply mentions a one-year period, while the remedy for returning the thing should be brought within six months, and it does not contain any reference to defects or diseases. Moreover, it comes to the aid of both lessor and lessee, which is against the nature of the aedilician remedies, through which there is only protection for buyers against sellers' tricks, so it is said in D. 21.1.2.'167
Other Dutch scholars too do away with Cujas' argument. Eck succinctly states that Cujas' constitution does not alter what is in the Digest. Groenewegen van de Made does not discuss the matter at all.168
Considering to what extent sales and lease differ, so that the aedilician remedies have to be excluded from the latter, Noodt presents two explanations of D. 21.1.63:
'The second reason is obscure, but its aim is the following, namely that the lessee of a defective or ill slave or animal does not need the Aedilician edict, when he can still use the thing for the purpose for which it was leased. The lease contract which is only ordained for use and enjoyment is then sufficiently carried out. However, if the thing cannot be used and enjoyed there lies a civil action on the lease contract for all the
164 Voet, Commentarius, vol. 3, to D. 21.1, no. 11, p. 746: '...nec tanta laesio esse potest propter vitium rei in mercede locationis, pro usu, quanta quidem in pretio rerum in emtione; ut proinde locati conducti actionem huic rei sufficere visum fuerit'.
165 Voet, Compendium, to D. 19.2, no. 5, p. 220: 'Ad id ut usus vel operae praestentur, set simul ea omnia, sine quibus commode quis uti nequit, l. 19, §2 \[D. 19.2.19.2\], l. 23 , §2, ff. h.t. \[D. 19.2.23.2\], aut alioquin id quod interest, nisi locator culpa careat, quo casu tantum pro rata remittenda merces, l. 33 et seqq. ff. h.t. \[D. 19.2.33sqq.\]'.
166 Cujas, Opera, vol. 3, p. 358 E.
167 Voet, Commentarius, vol. 3, to D. 21.1, no. 11, p. 746: 'Nec adversatur, l. 33, C. de locato. \[C. 4.65.
(33)34 Momms.\], quae inter alia motus Cuiacius etiam ad locationes edictum aedilitium censuit porrigendum, libr. 12, Observat. 38., cum lex illa simpliciter de anni spatio loquatur, dum redhibitoria intra sex menses movenda est, nec ullam morbi vitiive mentionem habeat, atque insuper locatori aeque ac conductori accommodetur; quod non patitur natura aediliarum actionum, per quas emptoribus tantum adversus venditorum fallacias succursum dicitur, l. I, §2, ff. h.t.'.
168 Van Eck, Principia, to D. 21.1, no. 24, p. 37: 'Locum habet hoc Edictum...nec in locationibus, d.l. 63 \[D. 21.1.63\] (non obstat l. 33. C. de loc. cond. \[C. 4.65.34 Momms.\])...'; Van Eck, Theses, to D. 21.1, th. 21, p. 52: '...pertinet enim hoc edictum ...non etiam ad donationes, l. 62. h.t. \[D. 21.1.62\] neque locationes conductiones, l. 63. D. h.t. \[D. 21.1.63\]'; Groenewegen van der Made does not discuss D. 19.2.39 or D. 21.1.63 in his Tractatus, pp. 155, 164.
240