Page 135 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

EARLY MODERN CASTILIAN LAW
Piñel goes further with an outright rejection of the doctrine of dolus in re ipsa. First, he dismisses the medieval reading of the words ipsa res dolum in se habet in D. 45.1.36.244 According to Piñel, those words have nothing to do with fraud in the situation, but only indicate that abuse of procedural rights by the plaintiff amounts to fraudulent behaviour.245 Secondly, Piñel argues that the Roman classical jurist never accepted the quantity of a lesion in itself as a sufficient ground for a contractual remedy. The quantity of a lesion had to be accompanied by intentional deceit in order to become relevant.246 The medieval assumptions about dolus in re ipsa were for that reason all based on quicksand.
Molina does express lesion beyond moiety in terms of objective deceit. Yet, he neither uses the phrase dolus in re ipsa. Instead, he opines that the prejudiced party is 'deceived in the situation' (deceptio re ipsa).247 In his discussion of the remedy Molina seems to deliberately avoid the concept of dolus in re ipsa.248
The canonist Gonzales Téllez († 1640) outright dismisses the view that the remedy for lesion beyond moiety is grounded in either of those. According to him, the remedy is based on inequity. Yet, he does not explain this general notion in legal terms.249
The rejection of fraud (dolus) of whatever kind by Medina, Azpilcueta, Molina, Téllez and their references to equity and contractual balances have strong reminiscences of Aquinas' theory of restitution. It is indicative of the tendency in early modern scholasticism to reason from overarching principles and to ignore ius commune subtleties when it comes to determining the duties of parties to a contract.
Early modern Castilian civil law statutes demonstrate a similar approach. Statutes of the period neither mention the doctrine of dolus in re ipsa. The Siete Partidas only demand that the duped party proves the deviation of the just price, and do not tell anything about the other party's good or bad faith. If the buyer or seller succeeds in proving the lesion beyond moiety he can either demand price compensation or rescission of the contract.250 This deviates from medieval ius commune doctrine according to which the choice between
244 Pinelus, Ad rubricam, to C. 4.44.2, 1.1, no. 8, p. 154.
245 Decock, Theologians, p. 575
246 Pinelus, Ad rubricam, to C. 4.44.2, 1.1, no. 7, p. 154: 'tantum interveniente dolo Iurisconsulti distinxerint
circa quantitatem'; Decock, Theologians, p. 574.
247 Molina, Opera omnia, vol. 2, disp. 352, no. 1, p. 239: 'Ut si quis exisitimans se vendere rem justo pretio,
illam vendat plus, quam valet. Atque deceptio haec dicitur re ipsa intervenire et non a proposito'; Decock,
Theologians, p. 590.
248 Molina, Opera omnia, vol. 2, disp. 349, pp. 230-234; otherwise Decock, Theologians, p. 590: 'Molina
continues to advocate the concept of objective deceit (dolus in re ipsa)'.
249 Téllez, Commentaria, to X. 3.17.3, no. 9, p. 207: '... etsi dicta lex 2. (C. 4.44.2) non fundetur in dolo, vel
errore; fundatur tamen in injuria, seu iniquitate... Accedit quia dolus ex calliditate alterius ex contrahentibus probatur, non vero ex quantitate pretii, l. dolus \[C. 4.44.10\], d.l. si voluntate, C. de rescind. \[C. 4.44.8\], l. dolum, C. de dolo \[D. 4.3.1.2\]'.
250 SP 5.5.56 in: Los códigos españoles, vol. 3, pp. 626-627: Otrosi dezimos que se puede desfazer la vendida que fue fecha por menos de la meytad del derecho precio, que pudiera valer en la sazon que la fizieron. E si el vendedor esto pudiere provar... Otrosi dezimos que si el comprador pudiere provar que dio por la cosa mas de la mitad del derecho precio... , que pudiera valer en aquella sazon que la compro, que puede demandar se desfaga la compra, o que baxe el precio tanto quanto es aquello que demas dio \[my emphasis\]'.
123