Page 123 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

EARLY MODERN CASTILAN LAW
when, according to experts, there was no culpa on the side of the seller or lessor of those barrels. Neither has it force in the forum externum, if the contrary of what is presumed is the case. Likewise Azpilcueta, Enchiridion, p. 435 and Mazzolini, Summa silvestrini, fo. 233r'.199
Molina furthermore finds for the forum internum that there is a presumption of fraud only if someone conceals defects in things which can cause considerable damage to the other party (si inde notabile nocumentum proximo evenerit).200 This principle comes from Aquinas and was later elaborated into a general rule that should be held in view by the confessor.201 Thus, Molina mitigates the seller's strict liability as laid down in D. 19.1.6.4 in two ways. First, a presumption of fraud can be countered. Secondly, the defect must have caused considerable damage in order to hold the seller accountable. Molina is followed by Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623)202, who, discussing not a sale but a leasing out of barrels, adds that, if the lessor had done no more than fulfilling his duties in the customary fashion, he can not be held liable at all.203
Yet, the strict early modern scholastic position that only sellers in bad faith can be held liable for defects in the thing sold, as defended for the forum externum by Molina, did not find its way into Castilian civil law. As we have seen, the Siete Partidas make both knowing and unknowing sellers account for defects in the object sold.204 López interprets these
199 Molina, De iustitia et iure, vol. 2, disp. 494, no. 5, p. 623: 'Quod vero attinet ad vasa locata, aut vendita, quando locator, aut venditor, ignorabat vitium, idcirco est id sancitum, quoniam attendere debebat, qualia vasa tradebat, lexque illa praesumit ignorantiam illam esse culpabilem in eo, qui vasa vitiosa ad id vendidit, aut locavit. Non vero in eo, qui agrum nocivum ad pastum locavit, de quo nullus antea id fuerat expertus. Quia ergo lex illa in praesumptione fundatur, utique in foro conscientiae vim non habet, quando, arbitrio prudentis, nulla adfuit culpa ex parte ea vasa vendentis, aut locantis: sed neque in foro exteriori vim habebit, si de contrario praesumptionis in eo constet. Ita Navar. in Man. cap. 17, num. 196 et Syl. verb. locatio.q.18'.
200 Molina, De iustitia et iure, vol. 2, disp. 353, no. 28, p. 248: 'Quando autem aliquis per vincibilem ignorantiam non manifestaret id vitium, quod manifestare tenebatur, tunc peccatum intervenire posset lethale, si inde notabile nocumentum proximo evenerit, praesertim si res, quae venditur, nociva esset. Tenereturque venditor non solum ad restitutionem eius quod ea res ob tale vitium minus valebat, aut ad contractus dissolutionem, sed etiam ad restitutionem damnorum inde subsequutorum: quandoquidem ipsius culpas sequuta sunt, vincibili ignorantia minime eum a culpa excusante \[my emphasis\].'
201 See 3.2.2.1.
202 Decock, Theologians, pp. 61-62 (with further references).
203 Lessius, De iustitia et iure, c. 24, dub. VI, p. 262: 'Hic tamen requiritur aliqua negligentia, vel culpabilis
ignorantia in locatore. Si enim praestet id, quod passim solet ab iis qui res huismodi locant, ad nihil
tenetur'.
204 SP 5.8.14 (see above) and SP 5.5.64: 'De la tacha, maldad que oviesse el siervo, que un ome vendiesse a otro. Tacha, o maldad aviendo el siervo, que un ome vendiesse a otro, assi como si fuesse ladron, o oviesse por costrumbre de fuyrse a su señor, o otra maldad semejante destas: si el vendedor sabía esto e no lo dixesse al comprador, tenudo es de recebir el siervo, e deve al comprador tornar el precio, con todos los daños e los menoscabos que le vinieron ende. E si no lo sabia, devo fincar el siervo al comprador. Pero es tenudo el vendedor, de tornarle tanta parte del precio, quanto fuere fallado en verdad, que valia menos por razon de aquella tacha. Esso mismo dezimos que seria, si el siervo oviesse alguna enfermedad mala encubierta \[my emphasis\]'; SP 5.5.65: 'Cavallo o mulo o otra bestia vendiendo un ome a otro, que oviesse alguna mala enfermedad o tacha por que valiesse menos; si lo sabe el vendedor, quando la vende develo dezir; e si lo non dize, luego quel comprador la entendiere aquella enfermedad o tacha fasta seys meses puedela tornar al vendedor, e cobrar el precio que dio por ella: e el vendedor es tenudo de lo recebir e tornar el precio al comprador, maguer no quiera. \[my
111