Page 204 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

LEGAL HUMANISM
adherence to Roman law and his refusal to grant his theories some practical relevance by seeking an alliance with contemporary developments.199
Doneau and Giphanius dismiss the view that the remedy for lesion beyond moiety
constitutes a restitutio in integrum. The texts about the remedy in the Corpus iuris civilis
give no hints towards the direction taken by Cujas. It is worth noting that Doneau seeks to
interpret the remedy's limitation in keeping with the civil remedy for returning the thing. The
latter boils down to rescission of the sales contract. Doneau believes it absurd to think that
'the action on the sales contract cannot lead to a rescission of the contract, because it is
meant to ensure that the sales is duly carried out'. According to Doneau, the remedy for
lesion beyond moiety is just as the remedy for returning the thing on the sales contract
aimed at resolving the contract and can consequently be brought as long as the action on
sales, sc. for thirty years.
200
However, we just learned that Doneau dismissed the existence of a 30-year long actio redhibitioria.201 The short aedilician limitation period of six months had precedence over the civil period when dealing with latent defects. In the light of that view, Doneau's argument here is rather surprising and makes one wonder which period Doneau really attributes to the remedy for returning the thing.
Giphanius holds that there is no need for a restitutio in integrum. The sale can be rescinded and solved in keeping with what normally happens, when a sales contract is rescinded due to non-performance.202 This argument has the colour of a petitio principii. Arguing that the remedy for lesion beyond moiety does not involve a restoration of the parties in their former state because C. 4.44.2 does not state so, begs the question to exactly what C. 4.44.2 states and which limitation it provides, a question which Giphanius fails to answer. He only notes that in Spain the remedy was thought to last for four years and in other regions for 30. Finally, he mentions that the latter period has been reduced by statutory law to ten. Of the latter we saw a French example at the beginning of this paragraph.203 These are indeed the three periods one encounters in 16th century legal
199 Cuiacius, Opera, vol. 9, p. 373 A: 'At intra quae tempora agetur ad rescissionem ex hac causa? Standum est Harmenopulo 3. Epit. tit. 3, ut intra quadriennium agatur, quod expressum est Nov. Romani, quae refertur ab Harmenop. Et recte quia haec actio rescissoria restitutio est in integrum. Sicut et cum venditor dolo emptoris minoris venditit, restitutio in integrum dicitur, l. 10, inf., hoc tit. \[C. 4.44.10\]. Restitutiones in integrum hoc tempore concluduntur, id est, quadriennio, constitutionibus Gallicis decennio. Ergo et haec actio rescissoria quadriennio extinguitur'.
200 Donellus, Ad codicis partes, to C. 4.44.2, no. 16, p. 209: 'Absurdum autem videtur actionem ex vendito ad rescindendam venditionem dari, quae ad confirmandam venditionem comparata est... Sed verior est sententia vulgo recepta, hic restitutionem in integrum non esse ad rescindendam venditionem, sed esse actionem civilem ex vendito, eoque perpetuam.... Argumento certissimo est redhibito... Nec quidquam est aliud haec redhibitio quam rescissio emtionis, qua sit, ut venditor rem suam recipiat et pretium reddat, l. facta, D. de aed. ed. \[D. 21.1.60\]. At haec redhibitio petitur actione ex emto, l. ex emto, § redhibitionem, D. de act. em. \[D. 19.1.11.3\]'.
201 See 4.2.1.3.
202 Giphanius, Explanatio, to C. 4.44, p. 316: 'Sed exiguitas precii propter libertatem commerciorum non
solet curari, l. 15, que si qui, i, h.t. \[C. 4.44.15\], excepto casu huius legis ii. \[C. 4.44.2\] de nimia precii exiguitate, quae exiguitas cum possit ordinaria actione ex empto et vendito emendari, non opus est extra ordinario auxilio restitutionins, argumento d.l., in causa, ff. de min. \[D. 4.2.14.2\]'.
203 Giphanius, Explanatio, to C. 4.44, p. 316.
194