Page 259 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER FIVE
liable for more than just price reduction or do other principles apply in sales of encumbered immovables?
Bronchorst (1554-1627)210 advocates a regime in which all sellers of encumbrances on the land sold are liable for price reduction only, irrespective of their knowledge of the burden. Adopting this view, he goes against his predecessor at Leiden University, Doneau, who had contended that only knowing sellers were liable and then for price reduction only.211 What moved Bronchorst to take this position?
In his Ἐναντιόφανων, Bronchorst begins with formulating the contradiction he aims to solve. He admits that, according to D. 18.1.59, the seller who has not guaranteed to sell land in the best condition (ut optimus maximusque) does not have to deliver the land free from encumbrances. As a consequence, a seller of land cannot be held liable for price reduction, if the land appears to be encumbered, unless he had guaranteed the absence of these burdens..212 However, D. 21.1.61 and D. 21.2.15 seem to state the contrary.213
To solve this contradiction (ἐναντιόφανον) Bronchorst refers to D. 19.1.41. In this text a house in Rome is sold, which is connected to an aqueduct for which a yearly sum is due. The text grants the buyer an action on the sales contract and to 'make a computation of the unforeseen burden', because he has been deceived (deceptus).214 Now Bronchorst believes that this text contains the general rule that all sellers, both those aware and those unaware of encumbrances on land, are always liable for price reduction.215 To this rule Bronchorst poses two exceptions. First, if the seller has claimed to sell the land in the best condition (ut optimus maximusque), he is liable for full damages, if the contrary proves to be the case (D. 18.1.59). The claim to sell the land in the best condition amounts to guaranteeing the absence of burdens on the land. Secondly, Bronchorst holds a seller in
Wissenbach, Exercitationes, to D. 21.2, no. 16, p. 412: 'Venditor, inquam, etiam ignorans ob vitium morbumven tenetur, ob servitutem vero, vel tributum... '; Voet, Commentarius, vol. 3, to D. 21.2, no. 16, p. 761: 'nostris interim moribus simplicius placuit, ut quoties servitutes aliaque in iura similia evincuntur... '; all authors discuss servitudes and taxes (tributa) indiscriminately.
210 J. van Kuyk, 'Bronchorst, Everardus', in: NNBW, pp. 471-472.
211 Lokin e.a., Het Rooms-Friese recht, pp. 147, 151.
212 Bronchorst, Enantiophanon, vol. 1, 2.64, p. 212: 'Dubitationem habet, an si venditor simpliciter fundum
vendat, teneatur eum liberum praestare? Nam ex l. cum venderes 59, ff. De con. emp. \[D. 18.1.59\] dicendum videtur, si non dixit venditor, se fundum vendere liberum, vel uti optimus maximusque est, de servitute eum omnino non teneri. Dicit enim eo casu Celsus, in d.l. 59 \[D. 18.1.59\] non liberum fundum, sed qualis esset, praestari oportere, quasi venditor ignorans servitutem, et non asserens esse liberum, teneri non debeat. Verum hoc casu teneri venditorem, colligitur ex eo, quod generaliter dicitur, si evincatur servitus, quanti minoris ob id praedium est litem aesitmandam, l. sed etsi 15, § 1, ff. de evict. \[D. 21.2.15.1\], l. quoties 61, ff. de aed. edi. \[D. 21.1.61\]'.
213 D. 21.1.61: Ulpianus libro 80 ad edictum: Quotiens de servitute agitur, victus tantum debet praestare, quanti minoris emisset emptor, si scisset hanc servitutem impositam; D. 21.2.15.1: Si usus fructus evincatur, pro bonitate fructuum aestimatio facienda est. Sed et si servitus evincatur, quanti minoris ob id praedium est, lis aestimanda est;
214 D.19.1.41: Papinianus libro tertio responsorum: In venditione super annua pensitatione pro aquae ductu infra domum Romae constitutum nihil commemoratum est. Deceptus ob eam rem ex empto actionem habebit: itaque, si conveniatur ob pretium ex vendito, ratio improvisi oneris habetur; Lokin e.a., Het Rooms-Friese recht, p. 147 interpret the text as if the seller had concealed the duty to pay a yearly sum, because of the aquaduct.
215 Cf. Lokin e.a., Het Rooms-Friese recht, p. 147 interpret the text as if the seller had concealed the duty to pay a yearly sum, because of the aquaduct.
251