Page 197 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER FOUR
Cujas understands D. 18.1.59 in the sense that only a seller who guaranteed the best condition of the land sold can be held liable, if the land turns out not to be in such a condition.159 The conflicting content of text D. 21.1.61, in which a seller of land burdened with a servitude has to compensate the buyer with a reduction of price, Cujas seeks to dismiss with a rather sought explanation. He contends that D. 21.1.61, which is about a servitude, cannot be extended to D. 18.1.59, which, according to Cujas, does not concern servitudes.160
However, the view that D. 18.1.59 is not about servitudes is rather unconvincing. The text speaks of liability for land 'as it is'161 in general. It is hard to imagine that that would not include servitudes. Cujas' struggling with the mentioned texts only serves to demonstrate how far he goes to defend their literal reading, even when it does not seem to square with the solutions offered by the majority of texts in the Corpus iuris civilis dealing with the same matter.
We encounter the same approach in Cujas' dealings with D. 19.1.41 about a tax for an aqueduct on the land sold. Cujas again practices close reading of the text when he states that the seller can only be sued for price reduction, no matter whether or not he knew about the real amount of this tributum.162 The same goes for D. 19.1.21 and C. 4.49.9. Though these texts again are at odds with the general rule of D. 19.1.13pr., Cujas makes no effort to squeeze them into the general principle that knowing sellers compensate for more than those who do not, as Accursius and Mudaeus had done. One thing, however, changes. Unlike Accursius, Cujas no longer applies a different liability regime to additional tax (capitatio) or land tax (tributum) than to defects in movables.163
Though the outcome of his interpretations to some degree match with Cujas', Doneau reaches his conclusion by means of a wholly different approach to the matter. Contrary to
159 Cuiacius, Opera omnia, vol. 7, p. 718 E: 'Accursius tamen existimat praestandum etiam esse hoc casu liberum. Quod existimo esse falsum. I. Quoniam Jurisconsulti constituunt differentiam inter fundum venditum sub hac formula uti optimus maximusque est...nam etiam sine illa formula venditus, liber esset quod est absurdum dicere'; similarly Schrader, Commentarius, ch. 24, no. 104, p. 361: '... venditor obligatur rem venditam liberam a servitutibus tradere emptori et si ipse hanc rem non tradiderit liberam, ipse ab emptore non quidem actione ex empto ad totale interesse, tanquam ipsi res vendita tradita non fuisset, conveniri potest, nisi expresse conventum fuerit, ut venditor emptori rei venditae possessionem liberam praestaret, Bart., l. 2, §1, ff. de act. empt. \[Bartolus, Commentaria, to D. 19.1.2.1, fo. 124v \]' .
160 Cuiacius, Opera omnia, vol. 7, to D. 19.1.1.1, p. 719A: 'Objicit Accursius l. quoties 61, de aedilit. edic. \[D. 21.1.61\], eandem quoque Alciatus objicit. Respondeo haec l. \[D. 21.1.61\] nihil pugnat cum nostra sententia: docet enim tantum quoties de servitute agitur. At negamus hic \[D. 18.1.59\] agi de servitute, idque aperte expressum est a Jurisconsulto h.l. \[D. 18.1.59\] et d.l. pen. \[D. 21.2.75\]'.
161 D. 18.1.59: non liberum, sed qualis esset...; that qualis refers to the legal state of the land becomes plausible from the antithesis of liberum and qualis esset.
162 Cuiacius, Opera omnia, vol. 4, to D. 19.1.41 p. 948C: 'Ergo lex ait, quod si venditor minus id tributum dixerit, quod majus esse postea invenitur, sive sciverit, sive ignoraverit onus praedii, aut oneris quantitatem certam, emptori tamen teneatur, quanto minoris actione ex empto'; idem, vol. 10, p. 444E, gloss in venditione... Ex empto habebit actionem to D. 19.1.41: 'Quanto minoris scil. ut docent seq. verba....'.
163 Cuiacius, Opera omnia, vol. 7, to D. 19.1.13pr, p. 745B: 'si venditor ignorans onus tributi sive capitationis quae praedio imposita erat, nihil de tributo dixerit, nullo modo tenetur, si iustissima fuit ignorantiae causa'; idem, 785A; for Accursius' position see 2.2.4.
187