Page 200 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

LEGAL HUMANISM
4.3 Lesion beyond moiety (laesio enormis)
From consilia by Zasius and Schrader we can gather that the remedy was accepted as law in force in the Holy Roman Empire.175 Sichardus designates C. 4.58.2 even as a law which knows no rival in terms of usefulness.176 Early modern statutes in the German regions strengthen Sichardus' statement.177 In 16th century France, the remedy too was generally accepted, as we can
read in Dumoulin's Tractatus commerciorum, although
to sellers only.178 179
Concerning the origins of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety, Giphanius defends the thesis that Roman law before Diocletian had no requirement that objects had to be sold for a just price.180 Sixteenth century scholars ascribe the validity of the remedy in their age to later theological influences. Zasius, for example, states that canonical equity was adopted as customary law in the lands of the Empire, which canon law enables the litigants to sue for price reduction.181 Schrader explicitly mentions that according to the forum conscientiae, it is prohibited to parties to a sales contract to deceive each other even for less than half the thing's price.182 Giphanius in a similar vein states that fairness in exchange is introduced to withhold parties to a sales from committing sins.183 Hence, the
175 Zasius, Consilia, vol. 2, cons. 12.38, p. 136: 'Cum ergo in negocio nostro cives in Grunach allegaverint enormissimam et intolerabilem laesionem, audiendi sunt, si foret in facto idipsum probare possint, non obstante iuramento quod casum intolerabilis laesionis non includit'.
176 Sichardus, Dictata, to C. 4.44.2, no. 1, p. 461: 'nec puto alterius ullius legis tantum esse usum vel utilitatem, quantus est istius praesentis'.
177 For an overview see Langer, Laesio enormis, pp. 58seq.
178
179
180 Giphanius, Explanatio, to C. 4.44, p. 306 \[top left column\]: 'Sed id tantum dicimus: emptionem iure perfectam olim non rescindi solitam, ex hac causa vilioris pretii'.
181 Zasius, Consilia, vol. 2, cons. 12.36, p. 136: 'Et est conclusio communiter recepta, quod licet reductio in compromissis iuratis non admittatur pro modica laesione, admittitur pro laesione enormissima seu intolerabili, nisi expresse esset cautum, quod praetextu laesionis etiam enormis vel enormissima reduci non debeat'; idem, cons. 12.38, p. 136: 'Et ad praedicta multum facit quod pro parte civium in Grunach allegatur factum Imperatoris Romani, qui aliquando reductionem a laudo arbitri factam admisit et in eo aequitatem canonicam agnovit, quae et in terris Imperii apparet consuetudine esse recepta'.
182 Schrader, Consilia, vol. 2, cons. 50, no. 5, p. 756: 'Ideoque receptum est deceptionem etiam infra dimidium justi pretii non esse permissam in foro conscientiae'.
183 Giphanius, Explanatio, to C. 4.44, p. 304 \[top left column\]: 'ut autem neutram in partem peccetur, id est... neque laesio et inequalitas rei ac precii nimia sit... nempe ut libertas commerciorum usque ad dimidiam partem iusti precii consistat'.
Besides the remedies lying for defects in the thing bought, medieval ius commune doctrine
granted the buyer of a defective thing under certain conditions a remedy for lesion beyond
moiety. This remedy became available where a defect decreased the worth of an item by
more than half its just price.
By and large, 16
th
century jurisprudence knew no significant changes regarding this
remedy for lesion beyond moiety based on C. 4.44.2.
De la Combe and Automne grant it
The latter bases his argument on contemporary legal practice.
Molinaeus, Tractatus commerciorum, no. 173, p. 187: 'Ideo dicta lex \[C. 4.44.2\] licet duriuscula, non
tamen prorsus irrationabilis: ideo illustrandum est in sua materia, prout enim in usum ubique recepta fuit';
De la Combe, Recueil, sub voce 'Restitution',
§3,
p. 329.
Automne, Conférence, vol. 2,
to C. 4.44.2, p. 216: 'Acheteur ne peut estre restitué, souz pretexte de
lesion enorme, si fait bien le vendeur. Iugé,... par Arrest solemnel de Paris en Aoust, l'an 1592... En
Iuillet 1609, à Bordeaux esté iugé... que le benefice de cette loy n'avoit lieu in emptore... De mesme iugé
à Bordeaux le 14. Fevrier 1606' .
190