Page 196 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

LEGAL HUMANISM
on the spot.155
Nevizzano († 1540)156, a student of Jason de Mayno, plainly states that the seller
always has to deliver free from encumbrances. He does so under reference to D. 18.1.59 which text contains the exact opposite.157 Mudaeus contends the same, but only after putting much effort into reinterpreting D. 18.1.59 to have it fit in with the rule of D. 19.1.13pr. According to D. 18.1.59, only a seller who has guaranteed to sell land in the best condition (ut optimus maximusque) is obliged to deliver it free from servitudes. Sellers who had not given such warranty need only to deliver the land such as it is and cannot be held accountable for encumbrances found on the land. This goes against the general rule of D. 19.1.13pr. that an ignorant seller who has not guaranteed anything can nevertheless be held liable for price reduction.
To bring D. 18.1.59 in line with that principle, Mudaeus explains that the clause ut optimus maximusque only refers to servitudes which might emerge before the completion of the contract. The clause then gives the buyer the opportunity of claiming that the seller free the land from servitudes before delivery. Against a seller who had not promised to deliver the land in the best condition, such a claim can not be made. The buyer either has to accept the land as it is or reconsider the deal. If the servitude is revealed after the contract's conclusion, however, the buyer has remedies at his disposal in accordance with the rule of D. 19.1.13pr., viz. against knowing sellers the contract can be rescinded, against unknowing sellers a remedy for price reduction can be brought.158 In other words, Mudaeus thinks that D. 18.1.59 and D. 19.1.13pr concern different moments in the process of concluding a sale.
On the other side of the spectrum we find 16th century humanist scholars who stick to a more literal reading of the texts governing the seller's liability for encumbrances on land.
155 Balduinus, Commentarii, p. 137: '\[Victus\]. Nempe venditor, adversus quem proposita erat Aedilicia quanto minoris actio, quia emptorem non admonuisset servitutis, quam fortassis ignorabat. Nam si eam dolo celasset, non modo Quanto minoris conveniretur, sed et quanti minoris emptoris interesset victus praestaret civili iudicio ex empto (D. 19.1.13.1), quod et superius attigimus'. Balduinus' reference to D. 19.1.13.1 instead of D. 19.1.13pr. appears to be an error; a scholar who interprets the Corpus iuris civilis' laws on liability for servitudes in keeping with D. 19.1.13pr. is Schrader, Commentarius, ch. no. 104, p. 361: '... venditor obligatur rem venditam liberam a servitutibus tradere emptori'.
156 For biographical details see S. Feci, 'Nevizzano, Giovanni', in: Dizionario, 2013. Online version <www.treccani.it > enciclopedia > nevizzano, giovanni >.
157 Nevizzano, Consilia, cons. 37, no. 2, p. 329: '... ut venditor oportet quod rem tradat liberam, l. cum venderes, ff. de contrah. empt. \[D. 18.1.59\]'.
158 Mudaeus, De contractibus, to D. 19.1.1.1, no. 7, p. 173: 'quod ergo Celsus dixit \[i.e., in D. 18.1.59\] oportere fundum tradi qualis est, ita intelligi debet, ut venditio impleta non rescindatur ob servitutem postea emergentem, neque redhibitoriae actioni locus sit, quando ignorans vendidit, sed quod manente venditione, venditor ignorans emptori ignoranti teneatur quanti minoris, d.l. quoties, de aedilit, edicto \[D. 21.1.61\] vel ex empto, leg. in venditione, hoc tit. \[D. 19.1.41\] ... tolerari forte melius potuisset, si dixisset Alciatus, quod vendito fundo, uti optimus maximusque est, si servitus aliqua emergat eo nondum tradito, vel pretio nondum soluto ab emptore, recipi non debere, nec pretium solvi, nisi obtinuerit venditor servitutem extingui ... durius esset, quod contractu utrinque impleto, si tunc emergat servitus, posse contractum rescindi, ac satis esse videtur, ut quanti interest emptoris ex empto posset agi, quamvis interim negari non possit, \[8\] quin interdum ob assertionem temerariam et iudicationem venditoris redhibitoria habeat locum ...'.
186