Page 331 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER SIX
pointed out in his treatise on the law of nature, sc. that the yardstick of prejudice by more than half the just price does not constitute a fair measure.235
Johann Gottfried Schaumburg (1703-1746)236, in answer to Thomasius' attack, contemplates that the remedy for lesion beyond moiety is a suitable instrument to forestall developments which could jeopardise the commonwealth (praejudicium Reipublicae).237 The remedy flows forth from the need to safeguard fairness in exchange, which requirement of equity is not at all cerebrina. Heinrich Abraham Hilbert († 1766)238, major of Dresden who defended his thesis with Schaumburg presiding, strongly rejects the qualification of fairness in exchange as a 'chimeric' idea.
'In general our law roots in that equity from which many other requirements flow forth, sc. that no one becomes enriched at another's expense. And this equity for sure is not chimeric, on the contrary. It is clearly recognisable in the principles of natural law, since these dictate that no one damages another or draws profit from another's loss. \[§ 6\] Furthermore, this equity, sc. that nobody should be made richer to the detriment of somebody else, is perpetual'.239
Though Hilbert here offers a school example of a petitio principi – after all, the only thing he says is that equity is a principle of natural law, because it is dictated by natural law – his opinion is nevertheless illustrative of the fact that Thomasius' view was far from being shared by many of his colleagues.
Leaving natural law theory aside, we find in usus modernus-doctrine and customary law, on the one hand that the validity of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety is beyond doubt.240 It can be brought within 10 or 30 years by both buyer and seller and it is applicable to all
235 Vitriarius, Institutiones, 2.12.16, p. 286: 'Quanta autem hic debeat esse laesio, judex aestimabit, vel vir bonus, ex ipsa pretii magnitudine et rei valore, secundum id, quod aequum esse ipsis recta ratio dictat'.
236 For biographical data see A. von Eisenhart, 'Schaumburg, Johann Gottfried', in: ADB 30 (1890), pp. 643- 644.
237 Schaumburg, Annotationes, 3.11, p. 685: 'Quae cum ita sint, facile patet, legislatores humanos suo iure usos esse, vi cujus permittitur ut propositiones juris naturalis universalis circumscribere et si collidant inter se invicem minori malo electo majus avertere possint. Quod iniquitatem non continet sed ad caput aquitatis hypothecae referri meretur, quam eligere potest legislator humanus, quando ex aequitatis absolutae observantia praejudicium Reipublicae imminet, ceu late contra Thomasius, qui aequitatem L. 2. C. de resc. vendit. \[C. 4.44.2\] cerebrinam nominavit in peculiari Dissert. aliosque demonstravi'.
238 Mittheilungen, vol. 1, no. 20, p. 73.
239 Hilbert, Dissertatio juridica, § 5-6, pp. 6-7: 'In genere enim lex nostra se fundat in illa aequitate ex qua
plures aliae condictiones fluunt, scil. ne quis cum alterius damno locupletior fiat. Et haec aequitas sane cerebrina non est, se potius ex ipsis pincipiis iuris natural. satis conspicua, quippe quae dictitant, ut nemo alterum laedat, vel ex alterius damno lucrum capiat. \[§ 6\] Et haec quoque aequitas quod scil. nemo cum alterius damno debeat fieri locupletior, perpetua est'.
240 Schulze, Die Laesio, p. 35, 65-66; Lauterbach, Collegium, vol. 1, to D. 18.5, p. 1264ff.; Stryk, Usus modernus, 3, p. 425: 'Interim ex humanitate rescissio ob enormem laesionem contra ius strictum indulta et in praxi recepta est, uti quotidiana experientia docet'; Kreittmayer, Anmerkungen, vol. 4, 4.3, no. 1seq., p. 221: 'Wasgestalten de iure naturae jede laesion und de iure civili nur jene, welche über die Helfte des Werths hinausgeht, im Kauf corrigirt, und abgestellt werde, ist schon oben par. pho. 4, not. 5, vorgekommen. Aus dieser letzern allein entspringt also die sogenannte (a) Querelas laesionis oder remedium leg. 2, Cod. de rescind. vend. \[C. 4.44.2\]'; Schmid, Lehrbuch, § 943, p. 499: 'Deren Grund ist eine unmässige Verletzung, oder eine Verletzung über die Hälfte, bey einem Contract, welcher nach Absicht der Contrahenten eine Gleichheit wechselseitiger Leistungen erfordert...'
325