Page 307 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER SIX
contract and the aedilician remedy with both their own distinct features, including different periods of limitation. However, a majority seems inclined to reduce the civil remedy's duration to that of her aedilician equivalent, as soon as the remedy is brought on the basis of a latent defect. For example, Justus Meier (1566-1622)104, Wolfgang Adam Lauterbach (1618-1678) 105, Johann Heinrich von Berger (1657-1732) 106 and others dismiss the 30- year limitation when the action on the sales contract is brought.107 On the other hand, Samuel Stryk (1640-1710) 108 and Justus Henning Böhmer (1674-1749)109 argue that the action on the sales contract remains perpetual, either because otherwise the Roman jurists would not have had any reason to extend the civil action to latent defects after the edict's introduction, or because the action on the sales contract serves for keeping the contract alive (ad implendum) and not for ending it (ad rescindendam).110
6.2.1.5 Favourable characteristics of the aedilician remedies
A substantial part of medieval ius commune scholars and legal humanists in keeping with the Corpus iuris civilis attributed buyer-friendly features to the aedilician remedies for defects in the item sold.111 Contrary to the civil remedies lying for latent defects, in the event of multiple sellers, the aedilician remedies could be brought against any seller for the entire sum (in solidum).112 Furthermore, the aedilician remedy for returning the thing possessed a penal character, which the corresponding remedy for rescission on the contract did not. In the event a seller was condemned to return the price paid and refused to do so, the buyer could claim the double.113 Yet, early modern Castilian legal doctrine seems to have done away with the aedilician remedies special features, because, by reason of equity, sellers should not be held liable for more than the damages suffered by
104 For biographical data see K. Schulz, 'Meier, Justus', in: ADB, 21, 1885, pp. 207-208
105 For biographical data see K. Luig, Klaus, 'Lauterbach, Wolfgang Adam', in: NDB 13 (1982), pp. 736-738
106 For biographical data see E. Döhring, 'Berger, Johann Heinrich von in: NDB 2 (1955), p. 80.
107 Aschen (1582-1654), De praescriptone, § 11, p. 12: 'At cum id res commerciis officeret et incerta
redderet dominia, fraudibus etiam et calumniis aditum patefaceret, factum videtur, ut aediles illud redhibendi tempus contraherent edicto, brevioremque terminum redhibitionis praefigerent'; Meier, Collegium, to D. 21.1, no. 31, p. 1200; Lauterbach, Collegium, to tit. 21.1, nos. 31, 34, p. 168 and p. 170: '\[no. 31\]... regulariter redhibitoria sex mensibus, aestimatoria utili anno. \[no. 34\] Quandoque autem propter praedictas causas, agitur actione ex contractu, illa naturam aedilitiarum actionum induit, et fit temporalis'; Cf. Vecchi, 'La garanzia', p. 94; Berger, Oeconomia iuris, 3.8.7, no. 7, p. 753; Klempt, Grundlagen, p. 53; also Strauch, Dissertationes, ch. 3, no. 9, n.p.; Wernher (1677-1743), Manuale, to 21.1, no. 3, p. 210; Thibaut, System, vol. 2, § 1036: 'Die actio redhibitoria kan in 6 Monaten, die actio quanti minoris 1 Jahr angestellt werden, wenn wegen der Mängel Caution geleistet ist... Alles dieses gilt denn auch, wenn wegen der Fehler die Contractsklage angestellt wird'.
108 For biographical data see E. Landsberg, 'Stryk, Samuel', in: ADB 36 (1893), pp. 699-702.
109 For biographical data see H. Liermann, 'Böhmer, Justus Henning', in: NDB 2 (1955), p. 392.
110 Stryk, Usus modernus, to D. 21.1, § 52, p. 727; Böhmer, Doctrina de actionibus, 2.7.77, p. 594: 'Durat
haec actio per sex menses utiles...in quo differt ab actione emti, quae perpetua est, nec ad rescindendam, sed ad implendum tendit. Unde redhibitoria vix in foro contractus institui potest, uti quidem actio emti'.
111 See 2.2.1.4 and 4.2.1.4.
112 D. 21.1.44.1.
113 D. 21.1.45.
301