The subject has also a topical interest in view of the forthcoming debate concerning the 'Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament on Consumer Rights' (SEC/2008/2544) and its subsequent implementation in the near future.
See R. Sefton-Green, General introduction, in: R. Sefton-Green (ed.), Mistake, fraud and duties to inform in European contract law, [The common core of European private law, 5], Cambridge 2005, p. 6-17.
Cf. also M.J. Schermaier, Die Bestimmung des wesentlichen Irrtums von den Glossatoren bis zum BGB, [Forschungen zur neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte, 29], Wien etc. 2000, 124-143.
See Schermaier, Mistake, misrepresentation and precontractual duties to inform, the civil tradition, in: R. Sefton-Green (ed.), Mistake (supra, n. 2), p. 44-45 and p. 55-56.
Succinct bio-bibliographical information on these as well as other scholastic authors (period from ca. 1500 to 1800) is now available on Jacob Schmutz's (Université Paris-IV Sorbonne) website: www.scholasticon.fr.
See Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, 3, 1, 1110a4-19. We consulted the following edition: Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit I. Bywater, [Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis], Oxonii 197015 [=1894], p. 40-41.
Tomas Aquinas, Summa Teologiae, IaIIae, quaest. 6, art. 6, resp. We consulted the following edition: Prima Secundae Summae Teologiae a quaestione 1 ad quaestionem 70, in: Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII edita, tom. 6, Romae 1891, p. 61.
Cf. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea (supra, n. 5), 5, 11, 1138a12, p. 112.
That Justinian did not mean to establish a general doctrine of just pricing is argued, also with reference to the historical context, in R. Zimmermann, The law of obligations, Roman foundations of the civilian tradition, Cape Town 1990, p. 259-268.
See J.W. Baldwin, The Medieval theories of the just price: romanists, canonists and theologians in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 49 (1959), p. 3-92;
and K.S. Kahn, Roman and Frankish origins of the just price of medieval Roman and Canon Law, New York 1973.
See the gloss Iudicis ad C. 4,44,2.
The just price should not be considered a static or objective standard, however, as Johann Gottlieb Heineccius (1681-1741) wrongly thought the scholastics held it to be. In the early modern scholastic conception, the just price is simply the market price under competitive circumstances, or the price set by the public authorities taking into account market factors like scarcity and abundance; cf. O. Langholm, The legacy of scholasticism in economic thought: antecedents of choice and power, Cambridge 1998, p. 77-99.
See D. 19,1,13pr. and D. 19,1,6,4. The early modern scholastics, however, pay more attention to the aedilitian remedies of Roman law, which could only be used during a limited time for rescission (actio redhibitoria) or price reduction (actio quanti minoris), not for all damages. This may be due to the fact that in his Quodl. II q. 5 art. 2, Thomas Aquinas speaks about the provisions of civil law in case of an animal morbosum. Cf. Quaestiones de quolibet, in: Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII edita, cura et studio fratrum praedicatorum, tom. 25, vol.2, Parisiis- Romae 1996, p. 228-229. The word morbosus is reminiscent of the morbus of animals, literally mentioned in the texts of the aedilitian edicts. See D. 21,1,1,1 and D. 21,1,38.
See, e.g., Azo, Summa Codicis, ad C. 4,49, Lugduni 1559, f. 111va, num. 21-23.
Further literature: Zimmermann, The law of obligations (supra, n. 8), p. 670-677;
A. Wacke Circumscribere gerechter Preis und die Arten der List (Dolus bonus und dolus malus dolus causam dans und dolus incidens) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der §§ 138 Abs. II und 123 BGB Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung Rom. Abt. 94 (1977), 184-246.
Cicero's discussion of the 'Merchant of Rhodes' was studied against the background of Roman sales law by D. Waibel, Aufstieg und 'Fall' des alexandrinischen Getreidehändlers, Ausgewählte Informationsprobleme beim Kauf von Cicero bis Savigny, in: M. Ascheri e.a. (eds.), Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert, Festschrift für Knut Wolfgang Nörr, Köln-Weimar-Wien 2003, p. 1057-1074.
Contrary to what the title of this contribution might suggest, it does not contain a single reference to the vast reception of the case in the late Medieval, Renaissance, or early modern period. As to its reception in humanist authors like Caspar Barlaeus (1584-1648) in the Netherlands, see W. Decock, Leonardus Lessius en de koopman van Rhodos, Een schakelpunt in het denken over economie en ethiek, De Zeventiende Eeuw, 22 (2006), p. 247-261.
Cicero, De ofciis, 3, 12, 50.
We consulted the following edition: Cicéron, Les devoirs, livres II et III, texte établi et traduit par M. Testard, [Collection des Universités de France], Paris, 1970, 96.
Cicero, De ofciis, 3, 12, 53, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 16), p. 98.
Cicero, De ofciis, 3, 13, 55, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 16), p. 99.
Cicero, De ofciis, 3, 12, 51, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 16), p. 97.
Cicero, De ofciis, 3, 13, 57, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 16), p. 99.
Cicero, De ofciis, 3, 14, 58, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 16), p. 100.
Cicero, De ofciis, 3, 13, 57, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 16), p. 100.
An interesting, and comparative study of Cicero's and Ambrose's De offciis is M. Becker, Die Kardinaltugenden bei Cicero und Ambrosius: De offciis, [Chrêsis, Die Methode der Kirchenväter im Umgang mit der antiken Kultur, 4], Basel 1994, esp. p. 213-227 on the third book.
See Plato, Republic, 2, 3, 359b-360d. We consulted the following edition: Platon, La république, livres I-III, texte établi et traduit par E. Chambry avec introduction d'A. Diès, in: Platon, Oeuvres complètes, [Collection des Universités de France], Paris 1947, tom. 6, p. 52- 53.
Ambrose, De ofciis, 3, 5, 29, in: Ambrose, Les devoirs, livres II et III, texte établi et traduit par M. Testard, [Collection des Universités de France], Paris 1992, p. 93-94: 'Nihil agit sapiens nisi quod cum sinceritate, sine fraude sit ; neque quidquam facit in quo se crimine quoquam obliget etiamsi latere possit. Sibi enim est reus priusquam ceteris nec tam pudenda apud eum publicatio fagitii quam conscientia est'.
In Ambrose, De offciis, 3, 6, 39, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 25), p. 99, we fnd the businessmen claiming the following against their detractors: 'Num industria in crimen vocatur? Num diligentia reprehenditur? Num providentia vituperatur?'. This is exactly the kind of argument put forward by the scholastics of the early modern period to defend the Merchant of Rhodes' right not to disclose information about future market conditions.
Ambrose, De offciis, 3, 6, 44, (ed. Testard, supra, n. 25), p. 102.
Tomas Aquinas, Summa Teologiae, IIaIIae, quaest. 77, art. 2, concl. We consulted the following edition: Secunda Secundae Summae Teologiae a quaestione 57 ad quaestionem 122, in: Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII edita, tom. 9, Romae 1897, p. 150-151.
See Thomas Aquinas, IIaIIae (ed. Leonina, supra, n. 28), quaest. 77, art. 3, concl., p. 152: 'Respondeo dicendum quod dare alicui occasionem periculi vel damni semper est illicitum: quamvis non sit necessarium quod homo alteri semper det auxilium vel consilium pertinens ad eius qualemcumque promotionem, sed hoc solum est necessarium in aliquo casu determinato, puta cum alius eius curae subdatur, vel cum non potest ei per alium subvenire. Venditor autem, qui rem vendendam proponit, ex hoc ipso dat emptori damni vel periculi occasionem quod rem vitiosam ei ofert, si ex eius vitio damnum vel periculum incurrere possit: damnum quidem, si propter huiusmodi vitium res quae vendenda proponitur minoris sit pretii, ipse vero propter huiusmodi vitium nihil de pretio subtrahat; periculum autem, puta si propter huiusmodi vitium usus rei reddatur impeditus vel noxius, puta si aliquis alicui vendat equum claudicantem pro veloci, vel ruinosam domum pro frma, vel cibum sive venenosum pro bono. Unde si huiusmodi vitia sint occulta et ipse non detegat, erit illicita et dolosa venditio, et tenetur venditor ad damni recompensationem. Si vero vitium sit manifestum, puta cum equus est monoculus; vel cum usus rei, etsi non competat venditori, potest tamen esse conveniens aliis; et si ipse propter huiusmodi vitium subtrahat quantum oportet de pretio: non tenetur ad manifestandum vitium rei. Quia forte propter huiusmodi vitium emptor vellet plus subtrahi de pretio quam esset substrahendum. Unde potest licite venditor indemnitati suae consulere, vitium rei reticendo'.
G. Biel, Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum, lib. 4, pars 2 (dist. 15-22), (ed. W. Werbeck / U. Hofmann), Tübingen 1977, dist. 15, quaest. 10, art. 3, dub. 1, p. 206-207.
Abbas Panormitanus (Nicolaus de Tudeschis), Commentaria in tertium decretalium librum, [Opera Omnia, tom. 6], ad X. 3, 19, 4,Venetiis 1588, f. 141ra, num. 2.
Angelo Carletti de Chivasso, Summa angelica de casibus conscientiae, [s.l.] 1520, s.v. emptio et venditio, f. 65rb-65va, n. 8.
Conradus Summenhart, Septipertitum opus de contractibus, Augustae Vindelicorum 1515, tract. 3, quaest. 54, par. Prima conclusio [without foliation].
Summenhart, De contractibus (supra, n. 33), tract. 3, quaest. 54, par. Corollarium primum [without foliation].
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (ed. Leonina, supra, n. 29), IIaIIae, quaest. 77, art. 3, arg. 4, p. 152: 'Praeterea, si aliquis teneatur dicere defectum rei venditae, hoc non est nisi ut minuatur de pretio. Sed quandoque diminueretur de pretio etiam sine vitio rei venditae, propter aliquid aliud, puta si venditor deferens triticum ad locum ubi est carestia frumenti, sciat multos posse venire qui deferant; quod si sciretur ab ementibus, minus pretium darent. Huiusmodi autem non oportet dicere venditorem, ut videtur. Ergo, pari ratione, nec vitia rei venditae'.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Teologiae (ed. Leonina, supra, n. 29), IIaIIae, quaest. 77, art. 3, ad 4, p. 152-153: 'Ad quartum dicendum quod vitium rei facit rem in praesenti esse minoris valoris quam videatur, sed in casu praemisso, in futurum res expectatur esse minoris valoris per superventum negotiatorum, qui ab ementibus ignoratur. Unde venditor qui vendit rem secundum pretium quod invenit, non videtur contra iustitiam facere si quod futurum est non exponat. Si tamen exponeret, vel de pretio subtraheret, abundantioris esset virtutis, quamvis ad hoc non videatur teneri ex iustitiae debito'.
Bartolus a Saxoferrato, In secundam Digesti veteris partem, ad D. 19,1,39, Venetiis 1570: 'Ordinationem qui sciens factam per superiorem quod aliqua res vendatur minori pretio solito, si vendit pro maiori pretio quam fuerit ordinatum, tenetur. (...) Quia videtur facere causa circumveniendi eo ipso, quod scit. (...) Vendidit tibi frumentum pro maiori pretio nec certioraverit te. Certe videtur teneri ad interesse, et ita glos. sensit in l. Contra legem facit, tit. de legibus' [D. 1,3,29].
Ludovicus Pontanus Romanus, Singularia, Lugduni 1541, [s.f.], num. 282: 'Numquid si sum magnus mercator et sciam in consilio de ordine dato quod cras minus valebit frumentum. Et ego vendidi non notifcando emptoribus de ordinatione predicta. Dicendum quod contrahentes possunt agere contra me ad interesse suum'.
Biel, Collectorium (supra, n. 30), dist. 15, quaest. 10, art. 3, dub. 3, p. 208: 'Accedit ad idem quod future contingentia sunt incerta et multis accidentibus possunt impediri. Ideo talis venditor non est certus, utrum supervenient quos putat superventuros.'
Summenhart, De contractibus (supra, n. 33), tract. 3, quaest. 62, par. Tertius modus dicendi.
Summenhart, De contractibus (supra, n. 33), tract. 3, quaest. 62, par. Secundus modus dicendi.
Summenhart, De contractibus (supra, n. 33), tract. 3, quaest. 62, par. Secundus modus dicendi.
For references to recent contributions on scholastic legal thought, see W. Decock, Jesuit freedom of contract, Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis, 77 (2009), p. 423-458. This article also contains a more detailed historical and philosophical contextualization of early modern scholastic legal thought. As to the philosophical context of early modern scholastic thought, a fundamental contribution in an equally fundamental volume is M.W.F. Stone, Scrupulosity, probabilism, and conscience, The origins of the debate in early modern scholasticism, in: H. Braun / E. Vallance (eds.), Contexts of conscience in early modern Europe, 1500-1700, London 2004, p. 1-16 and p. 182-188.
These various types of literature stem from commentaries on diferent parts of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Teologiae, notably on IaIIae, q. 90-108 and IIaIIae, q. 57-80, respectively. Their autonomization is not only indicative of the growing importance of legal and moral afairs for the early modern scholastics, however, but also of the relative autonomy and independence of the latter authors with regard to Thomas's teachings.
See Augustine, Epistula 153, num. 20 [CSEL 44, III, 419]: 'Si enim res aliena, propter quam peccatum est, cum reddi possit, non redditur, non agitur poenitentia, sed fngitur: si autem veraciter agitur, non remittetur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum; sed, ut dixi, cum restitui potest'. This text was included by Gratian in C. 14 q. 6 c. 1.
See Joannes de Valero, Diferentiae inter utrumque forum, iudiciale videlicet et conscientiae, Cartusiae Maioricarum 1616, praeludia [especially num. 4-5, and num. 15-16, p. 1-2].
The commentary of Cajetanus on the Summa Theologiae was edited together with the textcritical edition of Thomas's text in the Leonine edition (supra, n. 28).
Franciscus de Vitoria, De Justitia (ed. V. Beltrán de Heredia), vol.2, Madrid 1934;
ad IIamIIae, quaest. 77, art. 3, p. 131-145.
Sylvester Prierias, Summa summarum, [Lugduni 1524], s.v. emptio, f. 213rb-213va, num. 20. Other writers also refer to Summenhart.
Johannes Maior, In quartum sententiarum quaestiones, Parisiis 1516, dist. 15, quaest. 40, f. 111v.
Cf. Maior, In quartum (supra, n. 50) dist. 15, quaest. 40, f. 111v.
Dominicus Sotus, De iustitia et iure (with an introduction by V.D. Carro and a Spanish translation by M. González Ordóñez), Madrid 1968, lib. 6, quaest. 3, art. 2, p. 553-558.
Cf. Regulae Morales, n. 84, in: Jean Gerson, Oeuvres complètes (ed. P. Glorieux), vol.9, Paris 1973, p. 114-115.
See Abbas Panormitanus, Commentaria (supra, n. 31), ad X. 3, 19, 4, f. 141rb-va, n. 6. What Panormitanus actually says is that the seller has a duty to inform the buyer, if the latter is not careful (minus diligens) and is not watching very closely (et non bene prospexit).
This and similar examples can be found in other writers. In Domingo de Báñez (1528-1604) the young nobleman is a soldier who wants to go to battle. See Dominicus Báñez, Decisiones de iure et iustitia, Venetiis 1595, ad IIamIIae, quaest. 77, art. 3, p. 358.
In Luís Lopez († 1596) one can sell a blind horse to someone who wants to use the animal for a treadmill. See Ludovicus Lopez, Tractatus de contractibus et negotiationibus, Lugduni 1593, lib. 1, cap. 45, p. 277.
Joannes de Medina, De poenitentia, restitutione et contractibus, Ingolstadii 1581 (reprint Farnborough 1967), tom. 2, quaest. 34, p. 211-214.
Medina notices that this seems to contradict what Conradus stated in his second conclusion of question 54.
Later writers, such as Pedro de Aragón presume that Medina is merely talking here about a sin against charity.
Franciscus Toletus, Summa casuum conscientiae absolutissima sive de instructione sacerdotum, Antverpiae 1623, lib. 8, cap. 49, p. 1145, num. 2.
Petrus Aragonensis, In Secundam Secundae D. Thomae commentaria de iustitia et iure, Venetiis 1595, ad IIamIIae, quaest. 77, art. 3, p. 472-478.
See Bartholomaeus Fumus, Summa aurea quae armilla nuncupatur, Antverpiae 1583, s.v. emptio, p. 271, num. 16.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (ed. Leonina), IIaIIae, quaest. 77, art. 3, sc.: 'Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in III de Offic.: In contractibus vitia eorum quae veneunt prodi iubentur: ac nisi intimaverit venditor, quamvis in ius emptoris transierint, doli actione vacuantur'.
There possibly is a basis for the distinction between surmountable (non-excusable) and invincible (excusable) ignorance in Roman law, e.g. in D. 19,2,19,1, and the pair of ideas returns in 18th century authors like Augustin Leyser; see Zimmermann, The law of obligations (supra, n. 14), p. 367-368, and p. 869-870. It is arguable, however, that the first systematic and general application of the distinction between ignorantia invincibilis and ignorantia vincibilis stems from the scholastic tradition.
See Antonius Cordubensis, Quaestionarium theologicum, Venetiis 1604, lib. 2, quaest. 1, p. 3-4.
See Gregorius de Valencia, Commentarii theologici, Ingolstadii 1595, tom. 3, disp. 5, quaest. 20, punct. 4, cols. 1513-1525.
See Martinus Azpilcueta (Dr. Navarrus), Enchiridion sive manuale confessariorum et poenitentium, Wirceburgi 1593, cap. 23, p. 672, num. 89.
The civil law is at the centre of attention in Ludovicus Molina, De iustitia et iure, tom. 2, Conchae 1597, disp. 353, cols. 598-615.
Stephanus Fagundez, De iustitia et contractibus et de acquisitione et translatione dominii, Lugduni 1641, lib. 5, cap. 38, p. 483.
Ferdinandus de Castropalao, Opus morale de virtutibus et vitiis contrariis, Lugduni 1700, part. 7, tract. 33, disp. 5, punct. 22, p. 366, num. 4.
According to other writers, addiction to drink is a quality which does make the slave considerably less usable. See Castropalao, Opus morale (supra, n. 69), tract. 33, disp. 5, punct. 22, p. 366, num. 8.
See Joannes de Lugo, Disputationes de iustitia et iure, Lugduni 1646, tom. 2, disp. 26, sect. 8, p. 334, num. 134;
Antonius Escobar y Mendoza (1589-1669), Theologia moralis, Lugduni 1659, tract. 3, exam. 6, cap. 3, p. 400-401, num. 30, and cap. 5, p. 407, num. 69;
and Ferdinandus de Castropalao, Opus morale (supra, n. 69), tract. 33, disp. 5, punct. 22, p. 367, num. 12.
Leonardus Lessius, De iustitia et iure, Antverpiae 1621, lib. 2, cap. 21, dub. 11, p. 284-286.
In a student's notes of Lessius's lectures De iustitia et iure copied by Philippus Rovenius, whose manuscript is preserved in the Utrecht University Library (Hs 6 G 7), the question of intrinsic defects is dealt with in cap. 10, dub. 4, f. 92r-93r. There is some controversy about the authorship of the manuscript, cf. T. Van Houdt, Leonardus Lessius over lening, intrest en woeker, 'De iustitia et iure', lib. 2, cap. 20, editie, vertaling en commentaar, [Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren, en Schone Kunsten van België, 162], Brussel 1998, p. XV.
Leonardus Lessius, De iustitia (supra, n. 72), lib. 2, cap. 17, dub. 5, p. 201, num. 33 (in fne).
Joannes de Lugo, De iustitia (supra, n. 71), disp. 26, sect. 8, p. 332-338.
Ferdinandus de Castropalao, Opus morale (supra, n. 69), part. 7, tract. 33, disp. 5, punct. 22, p. 366, num. 7.
See Francisco de Vitoria, In IIamIIae (ed. B. de Heredía, supra, n. 48), quaest. 77, art. 3, ad 4, p. 144, num. 16.
Cajetanus, In IIamIIae (ed. Leonina, supra, n. 28), quaest. 77, art. 3, ad 4, p. 153.
Aristoteles, Politica, 1, 11, 1259a5-1259a23. We consulted the following edition: Aristotelis Politica, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit W.D. Ross, [Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis], Oxonii 19735 [= 1957], p. 20-21.
Sotus, De iustitia et iure (supra, n. 52), lib. 6, quaest. 3, par. Ad tertium, p. 557-558.
Cf. Johannes Maior, In quartum (supra, n. 50), dist. 15, quaest. 41, f. 113v-114r.
Cf. Johannes de Medina, De poenitentia (supra, n. 56), tom. 2, quaest. 35, p. 214-217.
Cf. Diego de Covarruvias y Leyva, In regulam Peccatum, de regulis iuris, lib. 6, Relectio, part. 2, par. 4, in: Opera omnia, Augustae Taurinorum 1594, tom. 2, p. 486-488.
Decius actually approved of a betting contract in favour of a certain Silvester in which another person promised him to give a certain amount of money if condition x, which Silvester knew with certainty to happen, would be fulfilled; cf. Responsa sive consilia, Francoforti ad Moenum 1588, cons. 115.
Johannes de Medina, De poenitentia (supra, n. 56), tom. 2, quaest. 22, p. 151.
In his Quaestionarium (supra, n. 64), lib. 1, quaest. 14, par. Opinio prima, p. 135, he calls him 'clarissimus doctor Medina magister meus'. Compare A. Lamela, Aportación bio-bibliográfca en torno a Fray Antonio de Córdoba, O.F.M. (1485-1578), Liceo francescano, 6 (1953), p. 179- 208.
Antonius Cordubensis (Antonio de Córdoba), Quaestionarium (supra, n. 65), lib. 1, quaest. 14, p. 136.
Petrus Aragonensis, In secundam secundae (supra, n. 60), ad quaest. 77, art. 2 et 3, p. 635- 637.
See Gregorius de Valencia, Commentarii (supra, n. 65), tom. 3, disp. 5, quaest. 20, punct. 4, p. 1462-1465.
Ludovicus Molina, De iustitia (supra, n. 67), tom. 2, disp. 354, cols. 616-622
Leonardus Lessius, De iustitia (supra, n. 72), lib. 2, cap. 21, dub. 5, p. 278-280
Johannes de Lugo, De iustitia (supra, n. 71), tom. 2, disp. 26, sect. 8, p. 332-338.
See Leonardus Lessius, De iustitia (supra, n. 72), lib. 2, cap. 21, dubit. 10, p. 284, num. 180.
Aries Pinellus, De rescindenda venditione, cum annotationibus Emanuelis Soarez, Rinthelii 1667, part. 3, cap. 2, num. 22-24, p. 418-419. Pinellus mentions that Fulgosius disagreed with Bartolus's condemnation of a merchant making profts on the basis of insider information. Fulgosius argued, according to Pinellus, that a contracting party should be allowed to use his careful cleverness (astutia et diligentia) to his own advantage. Pinellus, however, thinks it is safer to follow the common opinion based on Bartolus. What is more, Pinellus thinks that in the court of conscience, as opposed to the forum externum, the 'Merchant of Rhodes' is never allowed to make profts on the basis of his dominant knowledge position, even if knowledge does not concern the enactment of a future decree. He expressly defends Cicero's view. Molina clearly has no legitimate claim to authoritative support from Pinellus, then. For scant biographical details on Pinellus, whose work is full of references to the humanist jurists, as well as to the early modern theologians and commentators in the Bartolist tradition, see V. Herrero Mediavilla (ed.), Indice biográfco de España, Portugal e Iberoamérica, 4th edition, vol.8, München 2007, p. 4122, s.v. Pinello, Arias.
Leonardus Lessius, De iustitia (supra, n. 72), lib. 2, cap. 21, dubit. 5, p. 279, num. 46-47.
Johannes de Lugo, De iustitia (supra, n. 71), tom. 2, disp. 26, sect. 8, p. 337, num. 145.
See Hugo Grotius, Inleidinge tot de Hollandsche rechts-geleerdheid, III.15.7 (ed. F. Dovring, H.F.W.D. Fischer, E.M. Meijers, Leiden 1965, p. 245-246).
See the gloss Essem empturus ad D. 19,1,13pr.
See D. 19,1,13pr.: '(...) quanti minoris empturus esset, si ... scisset (...)'; and C. 4,49,9: '(...) quanto, si scisset emptor ab initio, minus daret pretii (...)'.
See D. 21,1,38: '(...) quo minoris cum venirent fuerint (...)'; and D. 21,1,31,5: '(...) quanti minoris is homo sit (...)'.
Samuel Pufendorf, De jure naturae et gentium, part 2, lib. 5, cap. 3, par. 2, p. 467-468 (ed. F. Böhling), Berlin 1998.
Pufendorf, De jure naturae et gentium, ibid., par. 3, p. 468-469.
Pufendorf, ibid., par. 5, p. 470.
See Hugo Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis libri tres, lib. 2, cap. 12, par. 9 (ed. B.J.A. De Kanter - Van Hettinga Tromp; annot. R. Feenstra et C.E. Persenaire), Aalen 1993, p. 344-345
and Samuel Pufendorf, De jure naturae et gentium (supra, n. 98), lib. 5, cap. 3, par. 4, p. 469.
See, for example, J.A. Crook, Law and life of Rome, London 1970, p. 181.
H. Broom, A selection of legal maxims classified and illustrated, Philadelphia 1882 (reprint Union, 2000), p. 768-809.
For a more extensive analysis, see W. Decock, Lessius and the breakdown of the Scholastic paradigm, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 31 (2009), p. 57-78 (esp. p. 69-75).
