Page 43 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

MEDIEVAL IUS COMMUNE
duration of the aedilician. Text C. 4.58.2, an imperial rescript to an appeal, has the following content:
'Emperor Gordian to A. Petilius Maximus: When you say that a slave which you bought a long time ago ran away after one year, I cannot think of a valid reason by which you would be able to sue the seller of the said slave on that account, seeing that it is plain law that the actio redhibitoria expires after six months and the actio quanto minoris after one year.'39
Emperor Gordian seems to suggest that the action on the contract, when brought for rescission or reduction of price due to a latent defect, is similarly subject to the aedilician periods of limitation instead of the 30-year period. After all, Emperor Gordian answers that he is unable to conceive of a valid action after one year has lapsed, which words appear to rule out a civil action for latent defects lasting longer; or had Emperor Gordian forgotten to mention that possibility?
He had not, so Bartolus reasoned that the plaintiff only had asked the Emperor about the aedilician remedies. This should clearly follow from the rescript's being accommodated under title C. 4.58. After all, this title discusses the aedilician remedies and not the action on the contract. Consequently, texts under that heading cannot be used as a basis for assertions about the limitation period of the latter.40 Ergo, the texts must be about the aedilician remedies. Sancto Blasio (ca. 1425-1492) even contended that, if asked, Emperor Gordian would undoubtedly have confirmed the civil action's perpetual character.41
39 'Imp. Gordianus A. Petilio Maximo: Cum proponas servum, quem pridem comparasti, post anni tempus fugisse, qua ratione eo nomine cum venditore eiusdem congredi quaeras, non possum animadvertere: etenim redhibitoriam actionem sex mensum temporibus vel quanto minoris anno concludi manifesti iuris est. PP. K. Dec. Gordiano A. et Aviola conss. \[a. 239\]'; De Bruijn, 'Accursius', pp. 93-95.
40 Bartolus, Commentaria, vol. 1, to D. 19.1.13(14)pr, no. 2, fo. 126v: '... non obstat l. ii C. de edil. edic. \[C. 4.58.2\], quia ut apparet in materia in qua posita est illa lex, ibi querebatur utrum possent agi quanto minoris pretoria et imperator respondet non animaduerto etc. et non fuit quesitum in genere utrum agere posset'; Baldus, Commentaria,vol. 1, to C. 4.58.2, no. 8, fo. 132; Hallebeek, 'C. 4.58.2', p. 280.
41 Baptista a Sancto Blasio, 'Tractatus utilissimus solemnissimusque de actione et eius natura', in: Volumen V Tractatuum ex variis iuris interpretibus collectorum, 1549, actio XXI, no. 45, fo 62: 'Ad dictam legem ii. C. de edil. act. \[C. 4.58.2\] respondetur quod imperator ibi non fuit interrogatus nisi utrum competeret aliqua actio pretoria et si interrogatus fuisset de ciuili respondisset imperator eam perpetuo competere. Et ego hoc probo ratione illius rub. C. de edil. act. que loquitur de edilitiis actionibus tantum et sic de propriis. Vnde et lex illa de qua in dicta lege ii. eodem titulo debet intelligi, quod loquatur de pretoria tantum et quod nihil dicat uel tractet de ciuili redhibitoria arg. l. Imperatores
29