Page 46 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER TWO
sellers for all cases in which there is more than one seller.
Yet, in his De formandis libellis, a handbook for legal practitioners on how to
phrase their claims, Odofredus does not mention any penalty in his discussion of the
actio in factum aedilicia. Admittedly, Odofredus acknowledges that this remedy
modelled to the direct aedilician redhibitoria could be brought against the seller, if the
buyer had already returned the thing but the seller refuses to pay back the price.
Nevertheless, the buyer then only sues for performance of the seller. Odofredus does
not mention the possibility of suing for the double amount.
52
Of the later commentators, Bartolus is silent on the matter. Baldus, however, is
not. He accepts the aedilician remedies' penal or punitive character.
53
Moreover, Baldus
elaborately discusses how a duped buyer could sue in the event of more sellers.
Explicitly stating that more sellers of the same object are to be considered in a
partnership (societas) and have to be named accordingly in the libellum, Baldus further
elaborates on Odefredus' thoughts over the issue. He no longer exclusively limits the
aedilician remedies' characteristic that they can be brought against multiple sellers to
sellers joined in a partnership to sell slaves (societas venaliciariorum), but applies it to
all sales in which multiple sellers jointly sell one item.
51
54
51 Odofredus, Lectura super digesto veteri, vol. 2, fo. 139v: 'Contingit quod plures vendunt mancipium morbosum vel iumentum indubitanter ne emptor distinguat in plures adversarios debet agere cum illo qui habet maiorem partem mancipii'.
52 Odofredus, De formandis libellis, n.p.: 'De actione in factum aedilicia... Competit enim in primis quando facta fuit redibitorio: et precium non restituitur emptori... unde emptor sic format libellum. Ago ego S. contra R. qui vendidit mihi equum morbosum cuius equi cum facta sit redibitio et precium non sit mihi restitutum et accessiones/ puta x. ideo predictum precium peto mihi restitui'; i
53 Baldus, Commentaria, to C. 4.58.4, no. 13, fo. 132v: 'sed pone quod venditor conventus redhibitoria non vult reddere pretium. Respondeo. Condenatur in duplum sed si vult reddere, secus'.
54 Baldus, Commentaria, to C. 4.58.4, no. 21, fo. 132v: 'Sed pone: ego emi a tribus mercatoribus bestiarium simul vendentibus porcos sive capras sive alia animalia vel a venalitiariis servorum emi servos, ago redhibitoria, vel quanto minoris: utrum possim agere contra quemlibet in solidum. Respondeo. Contra eum, qui maiorem partem habet possum insolidum agere et si omnes habent aequalem partem, adhuc possum insolidum formare libellum: quia lex praesumit hos mercatores esse socios, quoniam ita consuetum est et ideo qui habet maiorem partem, vel non minorem, cogitur iudicium pati per tota ista praesumpta societate: secus si haberet minorem partem, nam tunc non cogit nisi pro sua particula conveniri: non enim pertinet ad partum habentem in societate, totum onus iudicii subire, ut d.l. iustissime, § proponit \[D. 21.1.44.1\]. \[22\] Et nota quia haec specialia sunt in istis commercatoribus: secus in aliis compromissoribus'; likewise De Saliceto, In secundam, to D. 21.1.44.1, p. 688.
32
t is also
noteworthy that a libellum for a remedy on the contract is lacking in the booklet. Could it be that in legal
practice of Odofredus' time latent defects were only remedied with the aedilician remedies?