Page 44 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER TWO
Nevertheless, this reading of the text was not applauded by all. Another column of learned scholars, headed by Jacques de Revigny († 1296) and De Belleperche, held exactly the opposite view.42 On the basis of the same rescript they concluded that, with one year lapsed, all remedies holding the seller of the escaped slave accountable ceased to be available, including the civil actions on the contract43. The only possible remedies for latent defects were those set out in the edict which, under peril of forfeiting them, had to be brought within one year.
Others again refuted the views of the ultramontani. 'The contrary is observed by the world's custom, viz. that the seller can be sued because of a defect in perpetuum', so Angelus de Ubaldis (1328-1407).44 Paulus de Castro only partly subscribes to De Belleperche's view. The aedilician remedy for price reduction is indeed a special remedy which can be brought because of a sale (specialis actio ex empto).45 Nevertheless, so he continues, another remedy for price reduction which is not a separate remedy still exists, which can be annexed to the action on the sales contract (adiectio). De Castro compares the latter with the remedy that can be brought against a slave owner to the height of his slave's peculium (actio de peculio) and the remedy lying against the same for unjustified enrichment (actio de in rem verso) because of his slave's insolvency.46
ff. de in diem adiect. \[D. 18.2.16\] et quod notat glossa in c. Bone de confirma. uti. uel inutil. \[X 2.30.3\], que dicit in dubio tenendum est quod nigrum disponat, id quod rubrum'. Cited in Hallebeek, 'C. 4.58.2', p. 280.
42 Also Cinus. Cf Hallebeek, 'C. 4.58.2', p. 279-280.
43 Jacques de Revigny, Lectura Digesti Veteris, to D. 19.1.13(14), Leiden, d’Ablaing 2, fo 249: 'Et dicit
iurisconsultus \[De Revigny means Gordianus, NdB\] quod non animaduerto quod possit, ut C. de edilic e. l. ii \[C. 4.58.2\], set non diceret sic aliqua competeret. Et si dicas quod ciuiles actiones sunt perpetue, uerum est regulariter, sed non hic. Et est ratio, quia ista actio ex empto cum adiectione quanti minoris est redibitoria ad solucionem contractus et eius iura'; Pierre de Belleperche, Lectura Codicis, to C. 4.49.9, Firenze BML Plut 6 Sin 6, fo 208 and Cambridge, Peterhouse 34: 'Dicit glossa, scire debetis, est quanto minoris, ut ff. de edic. e. l. Quod si nolit § Si plures \[ D. 21.1.31.5\] et est effectus, quod pretoria est annalis. Est alia quanto minoris ciuilis et est perpetua, ut Inst. de perpe. act. in prin. \[Inst. 4.12.1\]. Credo quod non sit nisi una actio quanto minoris que usque ad annum competit tantum, ut infra de edil. act. l. ii in prin. \[C. 4.58.2\], cum idem sit quanto minoris et quanto minoris, ut ff. ad l. Fal. precia \[D. 35.2.63\]', Cited in Hallebeek, 'C. 4.58.2', p. 279.
44 'Angelus to C. 4.58.2: '...mundi consuetudo observat contrarium quod...ratione vitii in perpetuum venditorem agitur...'; quoted in Hallebeek, 'The Ignorant Seller's Liability', p. 212.
45 Hallebeek, 'The Ignorant Seller's Liability', p. 212.
46 De Castro, Commentaria, to D. 19.1.13(14)pr, no. 4, fo. 121:'Breviter in uno posset Pet\[rus\] dicere
verum quia quanto minoris praetoria est specialis actio ex empto, et sic est proprium nomen actionis et cum non reperiatur inter actiones bonae fidei, est stricti iuris, ut idem Pet\[rus\] refert in l. fin. C. eo \[C. 4.58.2\]. Sed quanto minoris civilis non est actio specialis, nec est proprium nomen actionis, sed est quaedam adiectio. Nam conpetit actio ex empto, ut hic patet post principium ibi \[D. 19.1.13(14)pr\]
30