Page 199 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER FOUR
We have already encountered the same argument in Fulgosius' commentary to the Digest.171 Doneau here probably has in mind the object's physical use. After all, a land burdened to such a degree that it no longer produces any profit is equally worthless as an escaped slave. In that case, liability for the encumbrances just as for the fugitive slave would make sense again.
By introducing different rules of liability for latent defects on the one hand and for encumbrances on the other, Doneau moves away from bringing the liability for encumbrances on land in line with that for latent defects. This is remarkable, considering that Doneau's ultimate aim, as expressed in the foreword of his Commentarii, was to make the study of Justinianic law, less impenetrable.172 Yet, it must be admitted that Doneau's division in defects on the one hand, and encumbrances on the other, creates two clear categories which replace the jumble of various texts with their own criteria for liability.
Doneau's solution is repeated in the works of Giphanius and of Roman-Dutch scholars.173 Giphanius also formulates a general rule according to which a seller can not be held liable for failing to deliver a thing free from servitudes and taxes, unless that had been overtly agreed upon or the seller had acted in bad faith. He could then be sued for price reduction, but not for more. Giphanius literally repeats Doneau when he states that this outcome is due to the fact that servitudes do not diminish the land's unhampered possession.174
observatur, quae non minus rei aestimationem minuunt; aliter in morbis et vitiis, quorum posteriorum nomine dicimus teneri venditorem etiam ignorantem? Differentiae ratio est ea, quae redditur inter servum fugitivum venditum et servum furem in l. 13, §1, De act. emt. quod scilicet morbosam aut vitiosam rem quodammodo habere non licet, eam autem quae servitutem aut tributum debet, non minus habere possumus. Quippe morbis et vitiis usus rei venditae impeditur, servitutibus et tributis non item.'
171 See 2.2.4.
172 De Bruijn, 'Accursius', pp. 87-89.
173 For Roman-Dutch and Roman-Frisian law see 5.2.4.
174 Giphanius, Disputatio, th. 46, pp. 13-14: 'Servitutes tamen rerum si vindicentur: non habet eo nomine
emptor actionem ex empto \[ref. to D. 18.1.59 and D. 19.2.75\]\] nisi aliud actum sit. Differentiae ratio inter servitutes et alia iura est haec, quod alia illa iura faciunt quo minus rem habere liceat, servitutes non item \[ref. to D. 19.1.13.1\]'; Idem, th. 128, p. 36: 'Etsi enim venditor qui rem tradere debet non tenetur eam praestare vel immunem a tributis vel liberam a servitutibus, nisi id actum sit. Si tamen haec onera dolo malo emptorem caelavit ignorantem...ex empto tenetur'; Idem, th. 132, p. 36.
189