Page 42 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER TWO
(1367-1427)31, Cinus († 1336) and Pierre de Belleperche († 1308) refuted his twofold calculation of price reduction.32 Fulgosius stated that there is no place for a price estimation based on the buyer's personal feelings toward the thing. Only the thing's common value counts in conformity with D. 35.2.63.33 According to De Belleperche 'quanto minoris is quanto minoris'34, which remark evoked the response from Baldus that scholars who thus think 'do not know what they are saying'.35
2.2.1.3 Limitation periods
Concomitant with the remedies' civil or praetorian origins their limitation periods differed. According to Placentinus and Accursius who closely follow the text of the Corpus iuris civilis36, the civil law remedies were perpetual37, whereas the aedilician remedies were only available for a limited period of time. The aedilician remedy for price reduction lapsed after one year. The aedilician remedy for returning the thing had to be brought within six months. As a result, in the Accursian Gloss, two distinct sets of actions remained for remedies for latent defects; one civil set and another aedilician. Each set possessed its own characteristics.
This 'Accursian' distinction was maintained by a great number of medieval scholars.38 In particular, there is one Codex text which at first glance offers a strong argument for curbing the limitation periods for the civil remedies for latent defects to the
30 De Castro, Commentaria, to D. 19.1.13(14)pr., no. 3, fo. 121; Hallebeek, 'The ignorant seller's liability', p. 210-211.
31 Savigny, Geschichte, vol. 6, pp. 237seq.
32 Baldus, Commentaria, to C. 4.58.2, no. 8. fo. 132v; Fulgosius, In primam partem, vol.2 , to D.
19.1.13(14)pr., no. 2, fo. 143; for the others see Hallebeek, 'The ignorant seller's liability', p. 196, 202,
209; Hallebeek, 'C. 4.58.2', p. 279.
33 Fulgosius, In primam partem, to D. 19.1.13(14)pr, no. 3, fo. 143: 'Quia non est spectanda affectio
alicuius: arg. l. pretia rerum, infra, ad l. falci. \[D. 35.2.63\]'.
34 De Belleperche, Lectura codicis, Firenze BML Plut 6 Sin 6, fol. 208ra and Cambridge, Peterhouse 34
(sheets without numbers), to C. 4.49.9.: '...cum idem sit quanto minoris et quanto minoris, ut ff., ad l.
fal. Precia \[D. 35.2.63\]'; quoted in Hallebeek, 'C. 4.58.2', p. 7.
35 Baldus, Commentaria, to C. 4.58.2, no. 8: 'Pet\[rus\] et Cy\[nus\] reprehendunt et nesciunt quod dicant'.
36 Placentinus, Cum essem, p. 58, no. 249; De la Porte (ed.), Corpus, gloss 'quanto minoris' to D.
19.1.13(14)pr., in: De la Porte, Corpus iuris civilis, p. 1484: 'Item quid differt quanto minoris civilis a praetoria? Respondeo: haec civilis, illa praetoria. Item haec perpetua, illa annalis'; Dilcher, Leistungsstörungen, p. 231.
37 Inst. 4.12pr.
38 Cinus, to C. 4.49.9, no. 2: 'est differentia inter eas; quia civilis est perpetua, praetoria annalis'. Also
Baldus to D. 19.1.1.13(14)pr. and Salicetus, C. 4.49.9, no. 2; Dilcher, Leistungsstörungen, p. 237. 28