Page 187 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER FOUR
Cujas continues to discuss D. 21.1.63.123 What does it say? According to Dumoulin and Hotman, the text begins with a general comment in which Ulpian expresses his wonder about the aediles not having promulgated on lease ('why nothing has been promulgated for lease, seemed something to wonder about'). The second part of the text is then Ulpian's explanation for this remarkable fact ('However, this reasoning is given: or because there has never been legal competence for them \[the aediles, NdB\] for that subject, or because lease is not similar to sales'). Dumoulin and Hotman do not doubt that Ulpian agrees with these arguments and that he accepts the limited scope of the aedilician remedies.
This, however, will not do for Cujas. The humanist's scrutinizing eye does not read the Digest text as if Ulpian states the arguments against extension as plain facts. Rather the text reflects part of a debate about extension. Ulpian merely states the arguments put forward in that debate, but does not clearly take sides.124 In Cujas' words:
'... The argument is twofold and consists of a reply and a rejoinder. Since neither are sufficiently clear - which is most of the times the case when something appears remarkable to those who write on the law- no reason is firmly established, D. 11.7.9.125 Ulpian only judiciously notes that there are arguments given of which he himself gives no sign of approving'.126
With this clever argument Cujuas creates room to come to a different conclusion than Oldendorp, Hotman and others who argue against extending of the aedilician remedy to locatio conductio. Starting from the same example as Hotman, Cujas reaches the exact opposite conclusion.
123 D. 21.1.63: Ulpianus libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium : Sciendum est ad venditiones solas hoc edictum pertinere non tantum mancipiorum, verum ceterarum quoque rerum. Cur autem de locationibus nihil edicatur, mirum videbatur: haec tamen ratio redditur vel quia numquam istorum de hac re fuerat iurisdictio vel quia non similiter locationes ut venditiones fiunt.
124 Klempt, Grundlagen, pp. 20–21.
125 Gaius libro 19 ad edictum provinciale: '...Unde miror, quare constare videatur neque heredi neque in
heredem dandam hanc actionem: nam ut apparet, pecuniariae quantitatis ratio in eam deducitur: certe
perpetuo ea inter ipsos competit'.
126 Cuiacius, Opera, vol. 3, p. 358 E: 'ratio est duplex: ἔνστασις et ἀντιπαράστασις, et ob id liquida
neutra satis, ut plerumque eius quod mirum iuris auctoribus videtur, nulla constat ratio certa, l.liberum, ff. de relig. Et prudenter Ulpianus refert tantum illas rationes reddi, quas ipse tamen se probare non indicat'.
177