Page 41 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

MEDIEVAL IUS COMMUNE
price reduction based on 'how much less the thing is (quanti minoris sit)'25. On the other hand, the texts dealing with the remedy for price reduction on the sales contract use the formula 'for how much less I would have bought, had he known about \[the defect\] (quanto minoris empturus essem, si id ita esse scissem)'.26
Azo already drew attention to these different formulae, slightly reformulating the aedilician variant into 'how much less the thing is worth (quanto minoris res valet)'.27 However, not going into details about what exactly these different wordings implied, it would be Accursius, who took the issue further. In his glossa ordinaria on the Digest, Accursius ponders that the formula used under the sales contract for price reduction (quanto minoris essem empturus) indicated the buyer's subjective judgement, whereas the one used in the title on the aedilician edict (quanto minoris res sit, reformulated, valet) hinted at the thing's real worth, that is, its value measured by an objective standard. According to Accursius, the latter boiled down to the thing's market value at the time of the sale, termed pretium commune.28 Accursius maintains a strict division between these two calculation methods.29
Yet, not all medieval lawyers were equally convinced of the tenability of this distinction proposed by Accursius. Although Blanosco († 1287), Bartolus, Baldus, Salicetus († 1412) and De Castro30, followed Accursius, Odofredus (†1265), Fulgosius
25 D. 21.1.31.5: '...quanti minoris is homo sit'; D. 21.1.38pr: '...vel quo minoris cum venirent fuerint'; D. 21.1.38.13: '...quanti minoris sit...quanto minoris cum veniret utrumque fuit'; there is one exception, vid. D. 21.1.61 in which the 'civil' variant is used: 'quanti minoris emisset emptor, si scisset hanc servitutem impositam'.
26 D. 19.1.13(14)pr.: '...quanto minoris essem empturus, si id ita esse scissem'; D. 19.1.13(14).1: '...quanti minoris empturus esset, si eum esse fugitivum scisset...'; D. 19.1.39: '...vel minoris empturus esset, si certioratus de loco certo fuisset'.
27 Gloss to D. 19.1.13(14): 'Alia est accio civilis quanto minoris empturus esset, alia pretoria quanto minoris res valet...'. Manuscripts quoted in Hallebeek, 'The Ignorant Seller's Liability', p. 193, note 51.
28 Gloss funguntur to D. 35.2.63: 'id est, communi pretio aestimantur res. Quod ergo dicitur, res tantum valet, quantum vendi potest, scilicet communiter ut hic...', in: De la Porte, Corpus iuris civilis, p. 1397.
29 Gloss esset empturus to D. 19.1.13(14)pr., in: De la Porte, Corpus iuris civilis, p. 1483: 'no\[ta\]. hic differentiam inter actionem quanto minoris civilem & praetoriam. nam in civili agitur quanto minoris esset empturus si scisset: ut hic. Sed in praetoria quanto minoris valuit tempore contractus propter vitium: ut ost. aedili.edi., l. qd.si nolit, § si plures...(Note there is a difference between the civil and praetorian action for price reduction, because under civil law the action is brought for a price reduction based on what the buyer thinks he would have paid less, had he known about the defect ( quanto minoris esset empturus si scivisset). That is what is the matter here. Under praetorian law, however, the action lies for a price reduction based on the thing's lesser worth (quanto minoris valuit) because of the defect at the time of the contract, as is the case in D. 21.1.31.5...)'; Dilcher, Leistungsstörungen, p. 231; discussed at length in Hallebeek, 'The ignorant seller's liability', p. 195, 198.
27