Page 57 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn
P. 57
MEDIEVAL IUS COMMUNE
have a remedy against ignorant sellers of taxed land, because the buyers themselves should have been aware of provincial taxes. If that were so, Fulgosius acutely observes, those supine buyers should neither be granted a remedy against knowing sellers. Yet, D. 19.1.21(22).1, does grant a remedy in such a case.94
Fulgosius then explains the ignorant seller's lesser liability for encumbrances by arguing that the buyer, despite the taxes, can still have the full benefits of the land he bought. Buyers of defective movables, Fulgosius' argument goes, are more hindered in the use of them, so that there a price reduction against ignorant sellers is justified. That explains the particular rule found in D. 18.1.59 that sellers who knew about provincial taxes are liable for price reduction but ignorant sellers are not liable at all.95
One may ask whether Fulgosius' argumentation is convincing. After all, partly encumbered land can be considered of less use in terms of profit, just as a partly damaged thing. Why should an ignorant seller be liable for price reduction in the latter case but not in the former? Despite the shakiness of Fulgosius' argument, later scholars, among which the famous Doneau, would use it.96
94 Fulgosius, In primam partem, vol. 2, D. 19.1.13(14)pr., no. 10, fo. 143: 'non obstat ignorantia et ita videtur mihi haec iura ad concordandia revocanda per rationem quod ipse Jurisc. exprimit'.
95 Fulgosius, In primam partem, vol. 2, to D. 18.1.59, fo. 134: 'Venditor pretii rustici praestare liberum si dixerit se non vendere 'ut optimum maximumque' et hoc intendit secundum gloss. Leges tamen per quas gloss. monetur haec non distinguunt, quia in l. in venditione \[D. 19.1.41\] venditor sciebat onus annue pensionis. Hic ignorans, nam sciens utique teneretur, infra de actio empti, l. si, ยง si \[D. 19.1.21(22).1\], infra de aedil. edic. \[D. 21.1.61\] loquitur cum de servitute agitur, et intelligitur quando venditor ignorans liberum asseruit, quo casu tenebitur quanto minoris est'; However, Fulgosius seems to contradict himself in his comments to D. 21.2.75 when he states that a seller who did not know about a servitude on the land he sold is nevertheless liable for price reduction. Idem, to D. 21.2.75, no. 5, fo. 188: 'Ignorans autem venditor servitutem deberi, non de evictione, sed de actione ex empto quanto minoris esset emptor empturus tenetur'.
96 Fulgosius, In primam partem, vol. 2, to D. 19.1.13(14)pr., no. 10, fo. 143: 'sicut est quando pretium tributarium, quando diminuitur utilitas, non autem aufertur emptori'.
43
