Page 39 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

MEDIEVAL IUS COMMUNE
slave inclined to flee and of which characteristic the seller is unaware.14 Since the inclination to flee is a non-corporeal defect, this is an exception to the rule that the aedilician remedies only apply to corporeal defects. Azo also notes this.15
Hugolinus († after 1233) similarly mentions that the civil and aedilician remedies differed, although he does not draw further implications from that fact.16 Accursius († 1263) appears to uphold his master Azo's theory, since in various glosses he emphasises that the aedilician remedy for returning the thing only applies to corporeal defects. Accursius adds that the civil remedies only lie, if the seller was aware of the defect.17
Regarding the liability of a seller who did not know that he had sold a thief, Accursius succinctly states that such a seller can 'in no way' (nullo modo) be held liable with a remedy on the sales contract. For that, knowledge of the slave's kleptomaniac inclinations had to be present.18 According to Accursius, this leaves the aedilician remedy, which considered knowledge on the seller's side irrelevant and allowed for an exception for the non-corporeal 'defects' of being inclined to steal or flee.19 Accursius' gloss in which he applies the aedilician remedies to thieving slaves is remarkable, since the texts of the Corpus iuris civilis dealing with the aedilician edict do not mention that the edict applies to slaves inclined to steal without warranties being given.20 Azo,
14 D. 21.1.4.3: Idem Pomponius ait, quamvis non valide sapientem servum venditor praestare debeat, tamen, si ita fatuum vel morionem vendiderit, ut in eo usus nullus sit, videri vitium. Et videmur hoc iure uti, ut vitii morbique appellatio non videatur pertinere nisi ad corpora: animi autem vitium ita demum praestabit venditor, si promisit, si minus, non. Et ideo nominatim de errone et fugitivo excipitur: hoc enim animi vitium est, non corporis...
15 Azo, Summa Theol., to C. 4.58, no. 9, p. 441: ...sed in servis non inducit redhibitionem, nisi servus sit fugitivus, vel erro...
16 Hallebeek, 'The Ignorant Seller's Liability', pp. 194–95, note 58, who cites Hugolinus to D. 19.1.13(14): 'Vel aliter dic quod in istis duobus casibus tenetur, sed non adeo ut in aliis. Nam in aliis tenetur ignorans quanto minoris fuisset empturus, set hic quanto minoris res est. Et est quidam differentia inter has acciones, quoniam prima est civilis et perpetua, secunda temporale et pretoria...'.
17 Gloss iudicium to D. 21.1.1.1: 'sc. redhibitorium quando fuerunt vitia corporis, alias quanto minoris res est, ut i.e. § si. et l. seq. \[D. 21.1.1.2\]'; gloss teneri to D. 21.1.1.2: 'sc. ex empto si scivisset, ut supra de ac. em. Iul, circa pr. \[D. 19.1.13(14)pr.\] vel redhibitoria, si corporis est vitium'; I used Hugues de la Porte's edition of 1558-1560 which can be consulted on line at <http://amshistorica.unibo.it/176>.
18 Gloss non tenetur to D. 19.1.1.13(14).1: 'sc. nullo modo. Vel dic adeo sc. sciens: ut modo non'.
19 Gloss interest to D. 21.1.1.1: 'quo ad hoc edictum, sed quo ad actionem ex empto interest: ut supra de act. emp, l. Iulianus in prin. \[D. 19.1.1.13(14)pr\]; gloss aiunt to D. 21.1.1.1: '...in servo non, nisi in fure et errone...'; gloss excipitur to D. 21.1.1.4: 'infra separatim in edicto ponitur. Item de quibusdam
aliis animi vitiis, ut supra eod. l. j, § item si quod mancipium \[D. 21.1.1.1\]'.
20 D. 21.1.23.8 comes nearest to allowing the buyer of a slave an aedilician remedy, although D. 21.1.52
explicitly denies so, if the seller had not warranted the absence of inclinations to steal. 25