Page 302 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURY NATURAL LAW
price of the thing sold. However, this price can be above or below the just price of the item and as such give rise to a rescission because of lesion beyond moiety. This implies the existence of a just price irrespective of the parties' bargaining, which becomes the standard around which proceedings evolve. Leaving aside for now the specifics of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety in French law79, Pothier's writings breath a rejection of a subjective price as standard to determine whether a contract is valid or not.
'lorsque les parties ignoroient la juste valeur, ou lorsque le vendeur, quoique conoissant cette juste valeur, s'est trouvé obligé par le besoin presssant qu'il avoit d'argent, de vendre sa chose pour la somme qu'on lui en offroit, quoique inférieur à la juste valeur; mais ce contrat, ... est un contrat inique et l'acheteur est dans le for de la conscience obligé d'en réparer l'iniquité en suppléant ce qui manque au juste prix; même dans le for extérieur les loix viennent quelquefois au secours du vendeur par les lettres de rescision, lorsque la lésion est énorme, comme nous le verrons ci-après, partie 5'.80
Unfortunately, Pothier deals only in a cursory manner with the remedy for price reduction in his Traité du contrat de vente.81 Nevertheless, his style of writing strongly supports the assertion that Pothier favours an objective determination of the price reduction accompanying the actio quanto minoris. His expositions on just price bear a distinct natural law flavour ('...le for intérieur oblige à suppléer le juste prix')82 and Pothier refers to the use of a price which exists independent of the contracting parties' consent.
In usus modernus treatises, the aedilician formula is the prevailing one too, often accompanied by the requirement to have the shortfall between paid price and the item's value in good condition being assessed by experts (periti). This indicates a predilection for an objective assessment of the price reduction.83
79 See section 6.3.2.
80 Pothier, Vente, vol. 1, 1.2, no. 21, p. 20.
81 Pothier, Vente, vol 1, 2.1, no. 232, p. 221.
82 Pothier, Obligations, vol. 1, 1.3.4, p. 47.
83 Struve (1619-1692), Jurisprudentia, lib. 3, tit. 20, no. 10, p. 494:'(2) Actio aestimatoria seu quanto
minoris, qua agit actor,..., ut tantum pretii restituatur, quanto minoris res ob vitium, cum veniret, fuit'; Stryk, Usus modernus, to D. 21.1, § 42, p. 720: ' Quanti vero quodlibet vitium aestimandum, illud in dubio iterum peritorum (...) judicio committendum, qui ex qualitate equi alteriusve rei, vitii, conventionis legibus, consuetudine loci, aliisque circumstantiis arbitrantur...'; idem, to D. 21.1, § 43, p. 721: '...hoc solummodo petit, ut res ad aequalitatem redigatur, id est, ut venditor tatntum de accepto pretio restituat, quo minus res valuit, cum veniret'; Titius, Iuris Privati, 4.20.14, p. 565: '..laesionis emendationem, vel etiam contractus rescissionem, recte actionibus consuetis exigimus, v. l. 31, §20 de aedil. edict. \[D. 21.1.20.31\], l. 11, §3, 5 de A.E.V.\[D. 19.1.11.3/5\] ut non opus sit, de nomine actionis, multa tricari'. With this remark Titius implies that the price estimation involved in all remedies of a lesion is the same. For the remedy for lesion beyond moiety Titius prescribes an objective assessment (4.20.17, p. 565). Hence, the price reduction coming with the aedilician remedy should also be determined objectively. Contra Schilter who does not choose in his Institutiones, 3.24.3, p. 468: '...per testes vel aestimatores juratos'; Changuion, (fl. 1750), Disputatio de emptione et venditione, c. VI, p. 26: '...quanti minoris res ob vitium, cum venderetur, fuit'.
296