Page 163 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER FOUR
rules pertaining to latent defects in his Actionum forensium progymnasmata (hereafter: Progymnasmata). Indeed, according to Oldendorp, the remedies were rightly called praetorian by Accursius in that they had their origins in the jurisdiction of the magistrates (ius honorarium) in which the curulian aediles took part in historical Rome.18 Also in keeping with the medieval communis opinio, Oldendorp holds that the aedilician remedy for returning the thing only applied to corporeal defects.
'Finally, the terms deficiency and defect indicate corporeal things. For defects of the mind, such as shyness, the seller is liable, if he has promised them \[sc. their absence, NdB\] explicitly. Mixed defects, i.e., defects of both body and mind, allow for a returning, D. 21.1.4ff.'19
Though Oldendorp upholds the limited scope of the aedilician remedy for latent defects, his argument for doing so is of a different order than those presented by his medieval predecessors. Oldendorp derives the specifics of the aedilician remedies from the fact that these are products of the ius honorarium, a fact which medieval scholars had not paid attention to, since they adopted the Corpus iuris civilis solely as the legislation of Justinian. The French commentator of Roman and French customary law Charles Dumoulin (1500- 1566)20, Johannes Sichardus (1499-1552)21 and Wesenbeck argue in a similar fashion.22
Wesenbeck furthermore subscribes to the view that the aedilician remedy for returning the thing and the remedies for price reduction available under the action on the sales contract complement each other:
'The aediles speak about corporeal defects, since a slave is not to be returned by reason of a non-corporeal defect, because such a kind of defect does not inhibit the slave's use, see D. 21.1.4... Still, it would be highly unjust if the seller delivers \[things with\] these defects which most of the time are hidden by many masks of conceit. For that reason, the civil remedy for price reduction should be brought in the event the remedy for returning the thing does not apply, see D. 21.1.4.1 in fine'.23
18 Oldendorp, Progymnasmata, p. 264: 'recte dixerimus has actiones censeri praetorias'.
19 Oldendorp, Progymnasmata, p. 269: 'Denique, appellatio morbi et vitii pertinet ad corpora: Animi autem vitia, ut pavorem, ita demum praestit venditor, si promisit nominatim. Mixta vitia, utpote, corporis et animi,
redhibitionem admittunt, l. ob quae vitia, § Idem Pomponius et § seq., ff. de aedil. edict. \[D.
21.1.4.3seq.\].'
20 In Latin: Carolus Molinaeus. For biographical data see J.-L., Thireau, 'Du Moulin, Charles', in:
Dictionnaire, pp. 276-278.
21 For biographical data see A. von Eisenhart, 'Sichardt, Johannes', in: ADB, pp. 143-146.
22 Molinaeus, De aedilitiis actionibus, 2.28, p. 206. This treatise can be found in Molinaeus' De emptione et
venditione et quae ad eandem materiam pertinent, pp. 193seq.; Sichardus, Dictata, to C. 4.58, no. 5, p. 476: 'Sed vitia animi non praestant emtori actionem redhibitoriam'; Wesenbecius, In pandectas, to D. 21.1, no. 6, p. 236.
23 Wesenbecius, In pandectas, to D. 21.1, no. 6, p. 236: 'De corporalibus vitiis loquuntur Aediles, nam propter animi vitia non redhibetur servus... Nam haec vitia usum servi non impediunt, l. 4. h.t. Et sane vitia animi quae multis simulationum involucris plerunque conteguntur, praestari venditorem iniquiissimum esset. Itaque hoc casu, cessante redhibitione, ex empto, quanti minoris erit agendum, d.l. I. in fine'; similarly, Schrader († 1589), Commentarius, ch. 26, no. 108, p. 362: 'Actio vero quanto minoris praetoria illa dicitur, qua emptor rei animatae contra venditorem intra annum experitur propter vitium tam animi, quam corporis rei venditae \[my emphasis\]'.
153