Page 134 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER THREE
Early modern scholastic scholars who write for the court of conscience struggle with the dogmatic underpinning of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety in a similar way. They tend to explain the remedy in keeping with Aquinas' view that a liability to make restitution is based on unjust enrichment. Aquinas lay the foundation for this line of reasoning. According to Aquinas, a breach of fairness in exchange through which one party received more than just at the other's expense triggers a duty to make restitution, 'in order that he who has got less than he should have got, must be given accordingly'.240 Aquinas does not mention fraud, be it premeditated fraud (ex proposito), or fraud in the situation (in re ipsa).
Consequently, most early modern scholars writing for the forum internum also avoid using the term dolus in any meaning whatsoever.
Though on first sight, Medina seems to copy the medieval ius commune majority view that the remedy for lesion beyond moiety can be brought, if there is no fraud (dolus) committed by the seller, Medina consistently speaks about defraudatio in re and not dolus in re ipsa:
'it is said that defrauding occurs in the situation (defraudatio incidens in re ipsa), in the sense that, though there can not be spoken of fraud or lies on the seller's side, he nevertheless received more than is just from the buyer'.241
The reason for Medina to avoid the term dolus in the context of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety is that he rejects altogether that the remedy presupposes some sort of dolus, be it subjective or objective:
'If a defrauding occurs without fraud of the contracting parties and the defrauding amounts to half the thing's just price, then in both fora a remedy lies for the one defrauded against the one defrauding... \[my emphasis\]'.242
Also Azpilcueta refrains from using the words dolus in re ipsa. He only emphasises that the duped party has to prove the thing's just price at the moment the sale was concluded.243 Azpilcueta is not clear about exactly what is proven, if the prejudiced party manages to substantiate his claim. Does a deviation of price prove fraud or error? Azpilcueta does not tell.
240 Aquinas, Summa Theolog., vol. 9, IIaIIae, q. 62, a. 1, ad tertium, p. 41: 'Ad tertium dicendum quod recompensatio quam facit distribuens ei cui dedit minus quam debuit, fit secundum comparationem rei ad rem: ut si, quanto minus habuit quam debuit, tanto plus ei detur. Et ideo iam pertinet ad iustitiam commutativam'; Decock, Theologians, p. 562.
241 Medina, De poenitentia, q. 33, fo. 207: 'dicitur defraudatio incidens in re ipsa, ut si nullus dolus, aut mendacium ex parte venditoris apponatur, attamen plus iusto recipit ab emptore'; see also Decock, Theologians, p. 285.
242 Medina, De poenitentia, fo. 210: '... si defraudatio eveniat in re, sine dolo contrahentium, et sit defraudatio ultra dimidium iusti pretii, in utroque foro datur actio defraudato contra defraudantem, ut patet: unum de duobus, scilicet, vel quod rescindatur contractus, vel quod ad aequalitatem reducatur et datur optio defraudanti, ut eligat ex his quod velit \[my emphasis\]'.
243 Azpilcueta, Enchiridion, c. 23, no. 85, fo. 336: 'Admonemus tamen... quod ad rescindendum hac ratione contractum, non solum opus est probare rem emptam... tanto pluris aut minoris valuisse in illa Regione, iuxta communem aestimationem, sed etiam tanto pluris aut minoris valuisse in illo loco et tempore et modo vendendi, quando, ubi et quo modo vendita fuit'.
122