Page 268 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

EARLY MODERN DUTCH LAW
5.3 Lesion beyond moiety (laesio enormis)
The remedy for lesion beyond moiety was widely accepted in both Roman-Dutch as well as Roman-Frisian law. Similar to the early modern Castilian civil law and the views of 16th- century humanists, Roman-Dutch and Roman-Frisian scholars took as point of departure that buyer and seller are allowed to outwit each other to a certain extent and that the remedy for lesion beyond moiety was an exception to that rule.255 Recent literature in which it is argued that Dutch calvinism caused the abolishment of principles of just pricing is not carried by the sources.256
Grotius argues that man's 'desire to form a society (appetitus societatis)'257 necessitates fairness in exchange as regards the parties' performances. As the requirement of fairness in exchange serves the proper allocation of goods in society, buyers should be allowed to negotiate a lower price to be able to satisfy their needs, and sellers to procure a reward for themselves in the sense of a fitting price which includes their labour expenses. Hence, circumventing each other without fraud had always been accepted in civil law. Yet, so Grotius continues, in due time this inch of bargaining freedom turned into a mile and buyers began to offer unreasonably low prices. Such disproportions between the price paid and the object exchanged needed to be corrected for the sake of safeguarding the function of sales in society to fairly cater for man's needs. It is the remedy for lesion beyond moiety which ensures exactly that.258
Huber and Tulden explain that the limit of the price's excess of one half the thing's price strikes a proper balance between fairness in exchange and commercial interests: on the one hand it prevents a sale from being out of balance. On the other, it does not punish every deviation from contractual equality, which prevents the freezing and perturbation of
255 Tulden, Commentarius, to C. 4.44, no. 1, p. 229: 'quippe quod ex natura commercii majus vel minus convenire potest, l. 8, eod. \[C. 4.44.8\], nisi tamen quis infra dimidium iusti pretii vendiderit'; Grotius, IBP, 2.12.12, p. 347; idem, Inleidinge, 3.52.2; Vinnius, Quaestiones, 1.56, p. 253; Van Leeuwen, Censura, ch. 44, to C. 4.44.2, nos. 1-2, p. 689; idem, Rooms-Hollands regt, 4.20.5, p. 387; Zutphen, Practycque, p. 42; Huber, Praelectiones, to D. 18.5, no. 2, p. 985; idem, Rechts-geleertheyt, 3.4.6, pp. 359-360; Voet, Commentarius, vol. 3, to D. 18.5, no. 3, p. 456; Van Eck, Theses, to D. 18, th. 301, p. 39, th. 313, p. 41; some are mentioned in Klempt, Grundlagen, p. 36, and Langer, Laesio enormis, pp. 61-62.
256 The view that Dutch calvinist scholars would have instigated a more liberal commercial attitude in which fraud would have become permissible is defended by Whitman, 'The moral menace of Roman law', passim; contrary, Hallebeek, 'Some remarks', passim.
257 Grotius, IBP, prolegomena 8, p. 9-10: 'societatis custodia humano intellectui conveniens fons est eius iuris, quod proprie tali nomine appellatur...'.
258 Grotius, Inleidinge, 3.52.2, pp. : 'Maar alzoo 't getal der menschen heel groot geworden zynde, de bekominge van allerhande zaken op alle plaatsten niet konde te wege gebracht worden, ten ware dat eenige lieden hun werk maakten van de vergadering en uitdeeling der goederen, zoo heeft ook de reden gewild, dat de lieden, die hun leven bestenden to gerief van anderen, voor dezen dienst eenigen winst tot loon zouden mogen bedingen.... zoo hebben de burgerlyke wetten lang toegelaten dat iedereen (doch zonder arglist) in de onderlinge hun handelinge zyn meeste voordeel zoude mogen bedingen. Maar met ter tyd de eige baatzoekinge, alle maat van redelykheid te buiten gaande, heeft inbindinge van noode gehad, en is overzulks eerst goedgevonden, dat de verkooper die voor het gekochte minder hadde bedongen, dan de helft was van de recht waarden van hetzelve, doe het verkocht werd, den kooper zoude mogen aanspreken om den koop te breken'; Grotius, IBP, 2.12.12, p. 347; Klempt, Grundlagen, p. 36; Hallebeek, 'Some remarks', p. 10, 23; see further on Grotius section 6.1.1.
260