Page 190 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

LEGAL HUMANISM
concluding the contract. 'Since possession of the thing bought passes to the buyer, a greater duty of care and a more diligent inspection of the things he buys for himself should rightly be demanded of him than when he accepts the barrel for lease for only a certain period'134, so Mudaeus summarizes medieval doctrine. This view, however, Mudaeus himself disapproves of:
'I would rather follow another reasoning... namely that there is not any difference between the selling or leasing of a barrel, nor is there a difference in barrels and all other things, as some say, see Bartolus to D. 19.2.19.1. Nor is there a stricter mode of liability between a barrel and other things of which the defects can easily be ignored and concealed... but there is rather a difference between artificially made barrels and other things which are sold or leased by virtue of someone's profession and other things which are sold or let by whoever owns them in the course of merely managing patrimony, something which Ulpian lucidly demonstrates... in D. 19.2.19.1.... In the first kind of contract there is no justified excuse, because what goes wrong in the handicraft of which the lessor or seller claims to be skilled comes with severe losses for the other party. In the second, no veritable lease is struck nor does it concern an acknowledgement of any kind of handicraft or business. No, this lease pertains to the simple management of someone's patrimony and consequently does not involve, nor tacitly implies, any warranty against losses that could and should have been foreseen by the lessor no less than by the lessee'.135
Thus, Mudaeus accepts a stricter liability for sellers who had made their living of producing and selling wares, as opposed to people who accidentally do away with some superfluous property.136 In the first situation there is some warranty of fitness implied by the seller's or lessor's professionality. Dumoulin shares the same view.137
As to why the seller has to compensate for all losses and not only for the loss of the
134 Mudaeus, De contractibus, to D. 19.1.6.4, no. 2, p. 187:'...ut cum emptae rei dominium transeat in emptorem, merito maior eius debeat esse cura, et diligentior inquisitio, qualem rem sibi emat, quam si conductam tantum ad aliquod tempus acciperet'.
135 Mudaeus, to D. 19.1.6.4, no. 4, p. 187: 'At certe diversam sententiam sequi malim, ..., nihil scilicet interesse in venditione vasis et locatione: nihil etiam inter vas et caeteras res omnes, ut quidem dixerunt, Bartol. ad dictam l. sed.addes, §I \[Bartolus, Commentaria, to. D. 19.2.19(21).1, fo. 133\]. Neque etiam strictiore modo inter vas et caeteras res, quarum vitia facile possunt ignorari et tegi (...) sed potius inter vas caeterasque res artificiales, quae ex professione alicuius artis venduntur, aut locantur, et alias quae ex simplici administratione patrimonii a quocunque domino earum venduntur aut locantur, quod luculenter ... demonstrat Ulpianus in dicta l.sed addes.§.I. ... In priore enim genere nec ignorantia iustam habet excusationem, propterea quod in arte, quam locator aut venditor profitetur, erratum sit, cum alterius gravi iactura. In posteriore vero locatione non versatur, nec spectatur professio alicuius artis aut negotiationis, sed ea locatio ad simplicem patrimonii administrationem pertinet, ideoque non implicat, neque in se tacite continet ullam susceptionem periculi, quod non minus a conducente, quam locante praevideri poterat et debebat'; cf. De Revigny's comments on C. 4.58.1, discussed in section 2.2.3.
136 See Vecchi for later scholars dealing with the same text. Vecchi, ‘La garanzia’, p. 96.
137 Molinaeus, Extricatio, no. 49, fo. 43v: 'Patet, attende causam ex qua vascularius obligatur ad interesse totius effusi liquoris, est enim culpa huiusmodi, quae non respicit ipsum solum corpus principaliter in dispositionem deductum, sed expresse ab initio praevisum aliarum rerum periculum. Cum enim vasculariam profiteatur, sive vasa cudat, sive ab aliis facta vendat et sic hanc artem vel negociationem exercendo, si non semper expresse, saltem semper tacite ipso facto et ex professo affirmat vasa ad usum ad quem prostant, vaeneunt, vel elocantur idonea et integra esse: si igitur vitiosa sint, culpa est
valde notabilis, l. Julianus, § Quid tamen, de actio. empt. \[D. 19.1.13.3\]... ' 180