Page 45 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

MEDIEVAL IUS COMMUNE
Although De Castro is not very clear about what difference this subtle distinction actually entails, he thinks it provides sufficient reason to dismiss the idea that there is only one remedy for price reduction.
All in all, it appears that the true portent of C. 4.58.2 and, by consequence, the question which limitation periods Justinian's corpus attributed to the various remedies for latent defects was still open to debate at the end of the 15th century.
2.2.1.4 Favourable characteristics of the aedilician remedies
The aedilician remedies are said to have been introduced to come to the aid of the
bamboozled buyer.47 Besides the fact that they enable buyers to bring a remedy in the
event of buying a pig in a poke irrespective of the seller's knowledge of the defect, this
statement is underscored by other beneficial features for the buying party. According to
D. 21.1.44.1, if there are more sellers joined in a societas venaliciariorum, it suffices to
only sue the one with the largest share in the sale in order to recoup the entire sum
paid. Whether this remedy could be brought cumulatively does not follow from the texts.
T
48
he civil action only allowed at most for a claim for the defendant's share in the deal.
Furthermore, a seller who had been ordered but failed to return the price paid, could
count on a condemnation of double the price, according to D. 21.1.45.
49
In his glosses to these provisions, Accursius does nothing more than provide
some explanatory lemma's. He does not problematise their content.
however, drops the detail that the D. 21.1.44.1 refers to a societas venaliciariorum and
50
Odofredus,
seems to accept the provisions about liability for the entire sum in the event of multiple
(vel tamen ex empto actione, etc.) sicut dicimus in actione de peculio, et de in rem verso. Sed in quantum Pe\[trus\] dicit quod tamen est dicere quanto minoris res est, quod quanto minoris fuisset empturus, non est verum, ut patet ex supra dictis et in hoc est magna utilitas, si bene consideretur'.
47 D. 21.1.1.2: Ulpianus libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium:'Causa huius edicti proponendi est, ut occurratur fallaciis vendentium et emptoribus succurratur, quicumque decepti a venditoribus fuerint'.
48 D. 21.1.44.1: Proponitur actio ex hoc edicto in eum cuius maxima pars in venditione fuerit, quia plerumque venaliciarii ita societatem coeunt, ut quidquid agunt in commune videantur agere: aequum enim aedilibus visum est vel in unum ex his, cuius maior pars aut nulla parte minor esset, aedilicias actiones competere, ne cogeretur emptor cum multis litigare, quamvis actio ex empto cum singulis sit pro portione, qua socii fuerunt: nam id genus hominum ad lucrum potius vel turpiter faciendum pronius est.
49 'Gaius libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium: Redhibitoria actio duplicem habet condemnationem: modo enim in duplum, modo in simplum condemnatur venditor. Nam si neque pretium neque accessionem solvat neque eum qui eo nomine obligatus erit liberet, dupli pretii et accessionis condemnari iubetur: si vero reddat pretium et accessionem vel eum qui eo nomine obligatus est liberet, simpli videtur condemnari'.
50 Accursius' glosses to the texts in: De la Porte, Corpus iuris civilis, pp. 1626-1627. 31