Page 70 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER TWO
Medieval jurists equal the common estimation of price to that for which things were commonly traded, as is stated in Accursius gloss funguntur to D. 35.2.63pr. 'Things are estimated by the common price, by which is meant that a thing is worth as much as it can - in general that is- be sold for'.145 De Revigny, Bartolus, and De Castro hold the same view.146
2.3.2.4 Extension to lease and movables
In the Commentaria of Baldus we can catch a first glimpse of what early scholastic thinking could bring about in the interpretation of the Corpus iuris civilis when Baldus explicitly ties the extension of the remedy for lesion beyond moiety to the requirement of equity, which, he says, governs all bona fide and stricti iuris contracts.147 Consequently, rights formulated in the context of one contract, automatically apply to other contracts, so he contends. Interestingly, Baldus backs his argument with a Digest text about the aedilician remedies, while nonetheless opposing its extension to lease.148 Here we see that the Roman law boundaries between contracts are overcome by a need to
hoc essent testes qui dicerent quod tunc temporis ante et post viderunt quam plurimos homines
volentes eam rem emere pro tanto precio communi aestimatione'.
145 'communi pretio aestimantur res. Quod ergo dicitur res tantum valet quantum vendi potest, scilicet
communiter', in: De la Porte, Corpus iuris civilis, p. 1397; Baldwin, Medieval theories, p. 28; Gordley, Origins, p. 65; Gordley also takes the edge off the argument that the medieval notion of how the market worked differed from today's views. See Gordley, 'Equality', pp. 1606ff.
146 De Revigny, Lectura, to C. 4.44.2, fo. 201 (above left): '...rerum precia non ex affectione sed ex communi estimatione considerantur, ut. ff. ad. l. falc. l. precia \[D. 35.2.63\] et ff. ad. l. acquil., l. si servum \[D. 9.2.33pr.\] unde oportet probare quod esset res digna tanto precio communi opinione'; Bartolus, Commentaria, to D. 35.2.63, no. 3: 'Quaero qualiter probabitur aestimatio frumenti proteriti \[i.e. protriti\]?Et gl. in l. 2 C. de resc. vend. \[C. 4.44.2\] dicit quod est clarum quantum poterat vendi illo tempore et ante et post...et ideo do tibi consilium quod in speciebus facias mentionem quod tantum vendi poterat in foro publico'; De Castro, Commentaria, to D. 35.2.63, no. 1, p. 106: 'illud dicitur justum quod communiter potest vendi, non attenta singulari affectione vel utilitate unius'.
147 Schulze's remark 'Kontrakte 'stricti iuris' unterlagen den Grundsätzen der laesio enormis nicht' and his reference are incorrect in so far as they concern Baldus. Schulze, Die laesio, p. 14; Grebieniow acknowledges Baldus' extension of the remedy to stricti iuris negotia. Grebieniow, 'Die laesio', p. 199.
148 Baldus, Commentaria, to C. 4.44.2, nos. 16-17, fo. 117: 'Tertio quaero an haec lex habeat locum in omnibus contractibus bonae fidei et videtur quod non, quia loquit solum in contractu emptionis venditionis. Ergo secus in aliis, de quibus non loquit...In contrarium, quia \[17\] omnium contractuum bonae fidei eadem est aequitas et ratio, ergo idem ius debet esse, ut ff de aedilitio edicto, l., sciendum, § deinde aiunt \[D. 21.1.19.5\]...\[18\] Dico et quod aequitas huius legis extendit se ad contractas \[sic\] stricti iuris, in quibus hinc inde par debet nasci obligatio quam naturalem aequitatem'; De Castro, Commentaria, to C. 4.44.2, no. 14: '...an ista lex quae loquitur in venditione habeat locum in aliis contractibus bona fidei, dicendum est sine dubio quod sic...'.
56