Page 66 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER TWO
by nature allowed to parties in sales to outwit each other'132 should accordingly be understood. Contracting parties are allowed to deceive each other up to the amount of half the thing's just price. With regard to divine law, however, Aquinas holds that every deviation of the just price triggers a restitution.133 This difference between liability in the worldly courts and what would in early modern scholasticism be called the court of conscience will be further explored in chapter three.
2.3.2 Lesion beyond moiety - outlook
Both developments around 1200 A.D. and the increased theological interest in the remedy for lesion beyond moiety resulted in medieval scholars paying their full attention to this alternative to the aedilician and civil remedies for latent defects. However, the remedy for lesion beyond moiety differed markedly in some respects from the remedies for latent defects. In order to be able to better appreciate developments at a later stage in the law governing defects in a sold thing the following sections discuss four characteristics of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety which will appear to be of importance in shaping future remedies open to a buyer of a defective thing.
2.3.2.1 Presumption of fraud
The first question regarding the remedy for lesion beyond moiety which kept medieval legal scholars busy, was whether the remedy required fraud on the side of the party receiving too much. According to Justinianic Roman law, the mere fact of a transgression of the price by half its just value seems to suffice to enable one party to
132 D. 4.4.16.4: Idem Pomponius ait in pretio emptionis et venditionis naturaliter licere contrahentibus se circumvenire; D. 19.2.22.3: Quemadmodum in emendo et vendendo naturaliter concessum est quod pluris sit minoris emere, quod minoris sit pluris vendere et ita invicem se circumscribere, ita in locationibus quoque et conductionibus iuris est; Hallebeek, 'Some remarks', p. 19.
133 Aquinas, Summa Theol., vol. 9, IIaIIae, q. 77, a.1, ad. pr.: 'Videtur quod aliquis licite possit vendere rem plus quam valeat. Iustum enim in commutationibus humanae vitae secundum leges civiles determinatur. Sed secundum eas licitum est emptori et venditori ut se invicem decipiant inquantum venditor plus vendit rem quam valeat, emptor autem minus quam valeat \[D. 4.4.16.4; D. 19.2.22.3\]...'; idem, resp. ad. pr.: 'Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex humana populo datur, in quo sunt multi a virtute deficiente: non autem datur solis virtuosis. Et ideo lex humana non potuit prohibere quidquid est contra virtutem, sed ei sufficit ut prohibeat ea quae destruunt hominum convictum; alia vero habeat quasi licita, non quia ea approbet, sed quia ea non punit. Sic igitur habet quasi licitum, poenam non inducens, si absque fraude venditor rem suam supervendat aut emptor vilius emat, nisi sit deceptus ultra dimidium iust pretii quantitatem. Sed lex divina nihil impunitum relinquit quod sit virtuti contrarium. Unde secundum divinam legem illicitum reputatur si in emptione et venditione non sit aequalitas observata. Et tenetur ille qui plus habet recompensare ei qui damnificatus est, si sit notabile damnum'.
52