Page 317 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER SIX
wordings ignorantia vincibilis, is hard to miss161.
Yet, by exclusively dealing with situations in which the seller or lessor acted with
fraud, Wolff neglects the distinction made by Aquinas and later early modern scholastics between sin and liability. Aquinas had stated that in the event of selling something without being aware of its defectiveness, though the seller does not sin, he nevertheless has to compensate the buyer, if the damage suffered is considerable.162 In the same vein, Grotius and Pufendorf concede that also in the event of a defect for which the seller is not to blame the imbalance resulting thereof has to be made good. Thus the Verschuldensprinzip seems to be carried less far by Grotius and Pufendorf than advocated in early modern Castilian views.163
Another solution to the text in the Corpus iurisi civilis which contrary to the shared belief that only sellers in bad faith should meet a full liability was proposed along a different strand which too had already had its precursors. The Flemish humanist Mudaeus had elaborately speculated on the importance of the various qualities a seller could possess. Someone selling goods commercially met with an increased liability as compared to someone selling off some personal property in the course of conducting his housekeeping.164 This line of thought is picked up by Grotius. As an exception to the liability rule that only a knowing seller is liable for all damages, Grotius formulated a particular liability for a professional merchant.165
In France, Dumoulin had also already formulated the principle that an increased liability always rested on professional sellers, something he expressed in the stock phrase professio artis obligat.166 Domat followed suit:
'Et il en serait de même, si le vendeur était obligé de connoître les défauts de la chose vendüe, quoyqu'il prétendit les avoir ignorez: comme si un architecte qui fournit les materiaux pour un bâtiment, y en avoit mis de mal conditionez: il seroit tenu du dommage qui en arriveroit (\[note\]... Quod imperitia peccavit, culpam esse, quippe ut artifex conduxit, d. §5. \[D. 19.2.9.5\] V. l'art. 2 de la Sect. 8 du loüage).'167
In a note, Domat refers to a Digest text on lease. Without hesitation he applies to sales a
161 Cf. Molina, De iustitia et iure, vol. 2, disp. 353, no. 28, p. 248. Text cited in section 3.3.3.
162 Aquinas, Summa, vol. 9, IIaIIae, q. 77, a. 1, ad. pr., p. 148.
163 Grotius, IBP, 2.12.12, p. 346: 'quanquam sine culpa partium, puta quod vitium latebat, ea quoque sit
resarcienda et demendum ei qui plus habet reddendumque minus habenti, quia in contractu id utrimque propositum au fuit, aut esse debuit, ut uterque tantundem haberent...'. The same passage is in Pufendorf, Ius naturae, 1.15.7, p. 238. Yet, it is interpreted by Groenewegen van de Made as referring to a seller who knew about the defects. Groenewegen van der Made's commentary on Grotius' Inleidinge, 3.15.7, ad 7: 'Vitium tempore venditionis latens reddit venditionem nullam; nam is qui cum aliquo contrahit, nota sibi \[my emphasis\] vitia significare debet, idque non tantum legibus civilibus, sed et naturae quoque actibus congruere, monet Auctor de Jur. B. et P., lib. 2, c. 12, § 9, n. 1. Ratio est, quia consensus in contractu requiritur, qui errore impeditur, Puf. de off. hom. et civ. lib. 1, cap. 9, § 12'.
164 See 4.2.3 .
165 Grotius, Inleidinge, 3.19.12, p. 255: 'Voor de schade die door ghebreck van het verhuirde den huirder
overkomt, mag den huirder vergoedinghe eisschen indien 't ghebreck de verhuirder is bekent gheweest
ofte van weghen sijn ambacht behoorde bekent te zijn: anders niet \[my emphasis\]'.
166 See 4.2.3; De Bruijn, 'Professio artis obligat', p. 32.
167 Domat, Les lois, 2.11.7, p. 165.
311