Page 262 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

EARLY MODERN DUTCH LAW
Voet does not see why that rule should not equally apply to servitudes and taxes.
'According to our custom it is more simply held that, so many times as servitudes and other rights of similar outlook are evinced and in one way or another it has been explicitly stated that the thing was not emburdened by or the bought thing was not liable to servitudes, the buyer can sue for all losses while keeping the sales contract intact, Grotius, Inleidinghe, 3.15.21-22'.226
Thus, considering liability for encumbrances on land, Voet accepts half the view of Vinnius, which is Doneau's, and half the rule of D. 19.1.13pr. There is only a duty to compensate when the seller was in bad faith. Nonetheless, that liability is the one D. 19.1.13pr. proposes, vid. the seller in bad faith has to account for all losses (id quod interest) the buyer incurred.227
Voet's proposed liability makes more sense than Doneau's. Though Doneau's argument that a buyer can still benefit from encumbered land is fair when it comes to a limited liability of an ignorant seller, it is a less convincing argument for a limited liability for a seller in bad faith. Indeed, Voet sees no reason to prevent him being held liable for all the buyer's loss.
Other Roman-Dutch scholars, however, defend the medieval communis opinio. Gudelinus (1550 - 1619)228, Groenewegen van der Made, and Van der Keessel (1738- 1816229) all hold that the liability for sellers of encumbered land is essentially the same as that for sellers of defective moveables.230
If we turn to Roman-Frisian law, we encounter a similarly confusing picture. Ulrik Huber was of two minds. In his Praelectiones, he hesitantly puts forward the rule that ignorant sellers can be held liable, but for price reduction only. He believes to have found an argument in D. 21.1.61, which text is, as we have seen, anything but clear.231 On the other hand, in his Heedendaegse Rechtsgeleertheyt, Ulrik Huber with equal uneasiness (schijnt, 'seems') restates the doctrine as formulated by Doneau and Vinnius:
Inleidinge, 3.15.21-22.
226 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, utcunque nominatim dictum fuerit, res illis oneribus non esse obnoxias, vel servitutes rebus emtis esse debitas, ad id quod interest emtor agat, venditionis contractu in suo vigore persistente. Hugo Grotius, manud. ad iurisprud. Holl. lib. 3 cap. 15 num. 21, 22'.
227 Lokin, e.a, Het Rooms-Friese recht, p. 153.
228 M. Ahsmann, 'Gudelinus (Goudelin), Petrus; , in: Lexikon, p. 269.
229 For biographical data see J. van Kuyk, 'Keessel, Dionysius Godefridus van der', in: NNBW, pp. 674-675.
230 Gudelinus, Commentariorum, 3.7, p. 108: 'tenetur enim venditor ob morbos vitiaque rei venditae... ut res
redhibeatur, aut reddatur tantum ex pretio, quanto minoris res ideo valet, l. 1, \[D. 19.1.1\] et l. sciendum ff. de aedilit. edict. \[D. 21.1.19\], l. Julianus, in princ. ff. de act. empt. \[D. 19.1.13pr.\]. Quid si servitutem, tributum, aliudve simile onus rei venditori reticuerit? Tenetur et eo nomine, scilicet sub scientiae et ignorantiae distinctione modo commemorata, l. 1, § venditor, ff. de act. empt. \[D. 19.1.11.7\], l. quoties, 61, ff. de aedil. edict. \[D. 21.1.61\]; Groenewegen van der Made (comm.), Inleydinge, p. 276, note to 3.15.5; Lokin, e.a., Het Rooms-Friese recht, pp. 150–153.
231 Huber, Praelectiones, to D. 21.2, no. 7, pp. 1086–1087: 'Sed actio quanti minoris ex Aedilio edicto videtur etiam, ubi nihil est dictum, competere de servitutibus, ut ad praecedentem tit. ex. l. 61, ibid. \[D. 21.1.61\] intelleximus, scilicet, nisi sciverit emptor...'.
254