De in diem addictione
(Concerning a conditional sale during a certain time.)
1 Paulus libro quinto ad Sabinum. In diem addictio ita fit: ‘ille fundus centum esto tibi emptus, nisi si quis intra kalendas Ianuarias proximas meliorem condicionem fecerit, quo res a domino abeat.’
1 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book V. A conditional sale during a certain time is made as follows: “Such-and-such a tract of land is considered to be purchased by you, unless before the first Kalends of next January, I can obtain better terms by which I can relinquish the ownership of the same.”
2 Ulpianus libro vicensimo octavo ad Sabinum. Quotiens fundus in diem addicitur, utrum pura emptio est, sed sub condicione resolvitur, an vero condicionalis sit magis emptio, quaestionis est. et mihi videtur verius interesse, quid actum sit: nam si quidem hoc actum est, ut meliore allata condicione discedatur, erit pura emptio, quae sub condicione resolvitur: sin autem hoc actum est, ut perficiatur emptio, nisi melior condicio offeratur, erit emptio condicionalis. 1Ubi igitur secundum quod distinximus pura venditio est, Iulianus scribit hunc, cui res in diem addicta est, et usucapere posse et fructus et accessiones lucrari et periculum ad eum pertinere, si res interierit,
2 Ulpianus, On Sabinus. Book XXVIII. Whenever land is sold for a certain period, it should be determined whether the sale is absolute, or under some condition, and inquiry should be made whether it is not undoubtedly conditional. It seems to me to be the better opinion that the interpretation of the contract depends upon what was the intention of the parties, for if it was understood that the sale should be annulled if more advantageous terms were offered, the purchase is absolute, and will be rescinded if the condition takes place. If, however, the intention was that the purchase should be perfected if better terms were not offered, the purchase will be a conditional one. 1Therefore, where, in accordance with the distinction which we have made, the sale is absolute, Julianus states that he to whom the property was sold under such conditions, can acquire it by usucaption, and has a right to the crops and all the accessories, and the loss will be his if the property should be destroyed.
3 Paulus libro quinto ad Sabinum. quoniam post interitum rei iam nec adferri possit melior condicio.
3 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book V. Since, after the destruction of the property the condition of the vendor cannot be improved.
4 Ulpianus libro vicensimo octavo ad Sabinum. Ubi autem condicionalis venditio est, negat Pomponius usucapere eum posse nec fructus ad eum pertinere. 1Idem Iulianus libro quinto decimo quaerit, si res in diem addicta interciderit vel ancilla decesserit, an partus vel fructus eius nomine adiectio admitti possit. et negat admittendam adiectionem, quia alterius rei quam eius quae distracta est non solet adiectio admitti. 2Idem Iulianus eodem libro scribit, si ex duobus servis viginti venditis et in diem addictis alter decesserit, deinde unius nomine qui superest emptor extiterit, qui supra viginti promitteret, an discedatur a priore contractu? et ait dissimilem esse hanc speciem partus specie et ideo hic discedi a priore emptione et ad secundam perveniri. 3Sed et Marcellus libro quinto digestorum scribit pure vendito et in diem addicto fundo si melior condicio allata sit, rem pignori esse desinere, si emptor eum fundum pignori dedisset: ex quo colligitur, quod emptor medio tempore dominus est: alioquin nec pignus teneret. 4Idem Iulianus libro octagensimo octavo digestorum scripsit eum, qui emit fundum in diem, interdicto quod vi aut clam uti posse: nam hoc interdictum ei competit, cuius interest opus non esse factum. fundo autem, inquit, in diem addicto et commodum et incommodum omne ad emptorem pertinet, antequam venditio transferatur, et ideo, si quid tunc vi aut clam factum est, quamvis melior condicio allata fuerit, ipse utile interdictum habebit: sed eam actionem sicut fructus, inquit, quos percepit venditi iudicio praestaturum. 5Cum igitur tunc recedatur ab emptione (ubi pure contrahitur) vel tunc non impleatur (ubi sub condicione fit) cum melior condicio sit allata: si falsus emptor subiectus sit, eleganter scribit Sabinus priori rem esse emptam, quia non videtur melior condicio allata esse non existente vero emptore. sed et si existat alius emptor, meliorem tamen condicionem non adferat, aeque dicendum erit perinde haberi, ac si non existeret. 6Melior autem condicio adferri videtur, si pretio sit additum. sed et si nihil pretio addatur, solutio tamen offeratur facilior pretii vel Maturior, melior condicio adferri videtur. praeterea si locus oportunior solvendo pretio dicatur, aeque melior condicio allata videtur: et ita Pomponius libro nono ex Sabino scribit. idem ait, et si persona idoneor accedat ad emptionem, aeque videri meliorem condicionem allatam. proinde si quis accedat eiusdem pretii emptor, sed qui levioribus emat condicionibus vel qui satisdationem nullam exigat, melior condicio allata videbitur. ergo idem erit probandum et si viliore pretio emere sit paratus, ea tamen remittat, quae venditori gravia erant in priore emptione.
4 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXVIII. Where a sale is conditional, Pomponius denies that the purchaser has the right of usucaption, and that the crops do not belong to him. 1Julianus asks the following question in the Fifteenth Book, namely: If during the time appointed for the sale the property should be destroyed, or a female slave should die, can the addition of her offspring or of the profits be allowed on this account? Julianus denies that this can be done, because it is not customary for the addition of property, other than of that which was sold, to be allowed. 2Julianus also asks in the same Book. If two slaves have been sold for twenty aurei conditionally, for a certain time, and one of them flies, and afterwards a purchaser appears to buy the surviving slave, and makes an offer of more than twenty aurei, will the first contract be annulled? He says that this example is different from the one relative to the offspring of the slave, and therefore, that, in this instance, the first purchase is rescinded, and the second may be concluded. 3Marcellus, however, states in the Fifth Book of the Digest that, where a tract of land is sold subject to the condition of a better offer, and the latter is made, if the purchaser has pledged the property, it will cease to be encumbered; for which it may be inferred that the purchaser is the owner during the intermediate time, otherwise the pledge will not be valid. 4Julianus also says in the Eightieth Book of the Digest, that he who purchases land dependent upon better terms being offered within a certain time, can avail himself of the interdict Quod vi aut clam, for he is entitled to this interdict whose interest it is that such an event should not take place. He says, however, that where land is sold under such a condition, both its advantages and disadvantages belong to the purchaser before a sale is made to a third party; and therefore that, if any forcible or clandestine act is performed, the first purchaser will be entitled to an interdict, even though better terms had been offered; but he also says that he can bring this action, just as he can claim the crops which he has gathered from the property sold. 5Therefore, where the sale is annulled after having been absolutely made, or where the condition under which it was contracted is not complied with, if better terms are offered, (on the supposition that there is a spurious buyer), Sabinus very properly states that the property belongs to the first purchaser, because better terms do not seem to be offered, as another genuine purchaser did not appear. Where, however, another purchaser appears, but does not offer better terms than the former one, it must also be said that everything remains in the same condition as if he had not appeared. 6Better terms are held to be offered where an addition is made to the price. If, however, the price is not increased, better terms are held to be offered if the payment of the price is rendered more easy, or is made sooner. Again, if a more convenient place for payment is mentioned, better terms are also held to have been offered, and this Pomponius stated in the Ninth Book on Sabinus. He also says that better terms are likewise held to have been offered if a more solvent party presents himself as a purchaser. Hence, if another purchaser is willing to give the same price, but agrees to buy the property under less onerous conditions, or does not require security, better terms are held to be offered. The same opinion must be approved if he is ready to purchase the property for a lower price, but releases the vendor from conditions which were burdensome to him in the first transaction.
5 Pomponius libro nono ad Sabinum. Quidquid enim ad utilitatem venditoris pertinet, pro meliore condicione haberi debet.
5 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book IX. For whatever contributes to the convenience of the vendor should be considered as affording more advantageous terms.
6 Ulpianus libro vicensimo octavo ad Sabinum. Item quod dictum est fructus interea captos emptorem priorem sequi, totiens verum est, quotiens nullus emptor existit, qui meliorem condicionem adferat, vel falsus exsistit: sin vero exstitit emptor posterior fructus refundere priorem debere constat, sed venditori. et ita Iulianus libro quadragensimo octavo digestorum scripsit. 1Si quis extiterit, qui meliorem condicionem adferat, deinde prior emptor adversus eum licitatus sit et penes eum emptum remanserit, dubitari poterit, utrum fructus ipse habeat, quasi nulla meliore condicione allata, an vero venditoris sint, licet eadem sit persona, quae meliorem condicionem attulit. quod ratio facere videtur: intererit tamen quid acti sit: et ita Pomponius scribit.
6 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXVIII. Moreover, what has been stated, namely, that the crops gathered in the meantime belong to the first purchaser, is only true so long as a purchaser does not appear who offers better terms, or where one who does appear is proved to be false. If, however, another purchaser appears, it is settled that the first one must return the crops to the vendor; and this Julianus stated in the Forty-eighth Book of the Digest. 1Where anyone appears who offers better terms, and then the first purchaser bids against him, and the property remains in his hands; it may be doubted whether he is entitled to the crops, as he would have been if no better terms were offered; or whether they belong to the vendor, even though the first purchaser is the one who made the better offer. I think that the last conclusion seems to be reasonable, but still, it is important, as Pomponius says, to ascertain what was the intention of the parties.
7 Paulus libro quinto ad Sabinum. Licet autem venditori meliore allata condicione addicere posteriori, nisi prior paratus sit plus adicere.
7 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book V. The vendor can adjudge the property to the last purchaser, where better terms are offered, unless the former is ready to bid a larger sum.
8 Idem libro trigensimo tertio ad edictum. Necesse autem habebit venditor meliore condicione allata priorem emptorem certiorem facere, ut, si quid alius adicit, ipse quoque adicere possit.
8 The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXIII. The vendor is required to notify the first purchaser, where better terms are offered, so that, if the other has increased the price, he can do so likewise.
9 Ulpianus libro vicensimo octavo ad Sabinum. Sabinus scribit licere venditori meliorem condicionem oblatam abicere sequique primam quasi meliorem, et ita utimur. quid tamen, si hoc erat nominatim actum, ut liceret resilire emptori meliore condicione allata? dicendum erit dissolutam priorem emptionem, etiamsi venditor sequentem non admittat.
9 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXVIII. Sabinus says that the vendor can reject the better terms offered, and adhere to the first proposal, if he considers it preferable, and we have adopted this rule. But what should be done, if the intention of the parties had been expressly stated to be that the purchaser could withdraw his offer in case a better one was made? It must be said that the first purchase is annulled, even if the vendor does not accept the second one.
10 Iulianus libro tertio decimo digestorum. Sed si proponatur a creditore pignus in diem addictum, non potest videri bona fide negotium agi, nisi adiectio recipiatur. quid ergo est, si inops emptor et impediendae tantummodo venditionis causa intervenit? potest creditor sine periculo priori emptori addicere.
10 Julianus, Digest, Book XIII. Where, however, a pledge has been sold by a creditor in the case of a conditional sale, he cannot be held to have acted in good faith, if he does not accept the increased price. But what if the new purchaser was poor, and had intervened only for the purpose of preventing the sale? The creditor can adjudge the property to the first purchaser without incurring any risk.
11 Ulpianus libro vicensimo octavo ad Sabinum. Quod autem Sabinus scribit fundum in diem addici non posse rursus, qui semel fuerat in diem addictus, ratione eiusmodi defendit, quia prioris, inquit, emptoris statim fit, scilicet quasi non videatur melior condicio allata, si non secure secundo emptori fundus addicitur, sed alia licitatio prospicitur. sed Iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum scribsit interesse multum, quid inter contrahentes actum sit, nec impedire quicquam vel hoc agi, ut saepius fundus collocetur, dum vel prima vel secunda vel tertia adiectione res a venditore discedat. 1Item quod Sabinus ait, si tribus vendentibus duo posteriori addixerint, unus non admiserit adiectionem, huius partem priori, duorum posteriori emptam, ita demum verum est, si variis pretiis partes suas distraxerunt,
11 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXVIII. The opinion of Sabinus, namely, that land cannot be sold a second time where it is subject to a condition of this kind, he defends by the following argument. He holds that the land at once became the property of the first purchaser, just as if better terms were not offered when it was not adjudged positively to the second purchaser, but only with the view to another bidding up the price. Julianus, however, says in the Fifteenth Book of the Digest, that the intention of the contracting parties is a matter of much importance, and that there is nothing to prevent the land from being frequently transferred, provided this is done by the vendor after the first, second, or third bid. 1Sabinus also says that, where of three vendors two adjudge the property to the last purchaser, but one did not consent that this should be done, the share of the latter will belong to the first purchaser; and this is true where the vendors sold their shares to different parties,
12 Pomponius libro nono ad Sabinum. etsi dispares partes vendentium fuerint.
12 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book IX. Even though the shares of the vendors were unequal.
13 Ulpianus libro vicensimo octavo ad Sabinum. Quod si uno pretio vendiderint, dicendum est totam priori emptam manere, quemadmodum si quis mihi totum fundum ad diem addixisset, postea vero pretio adiecto dimidium alii addixerit. Celsus quoque libro octavo digestorum refert Mucium Brutum Labeonem quod Sabinum existimare: ipse quoque Celsus idem probat et adicit mirari se a nemine animadversum, quod si prior emptor ita contraxit, ut nisi totum, fundum emptum nollet habere, non habere eum eam partem emptam, quam unus ex sociis posteriori emptori addicere noluit. 1Verum est autem vel unum ex venditoribus posse meliorem adferre condicionem: emere enim cum tota re etiam nostram partem possumus.
13 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXVIII. Where all three parties sold their shares at the same price, it must be said that the entire property belongs to the first purchaser; just as if someone had sold me an entire tract of land for a time under this condition, and afterwards had adjudged half of it to another party at a higher price. Celsus states in the Eighth Book of the Digest, that Mucius, Brutus, and Labeo were of the same opinion as Sabinus. Celsus also approves this opinion, and he adds that he is surprised that it had been remarked by no one that if a first purchaser had made a contract with the understanding that he was unwilling to make the purchase unless the entire property was included, he could not be compelled to buy that portion which one of the joint-owners refused to adjudge to a subsequent purchaser. 1It is true, however, that one of the vendors can himself offer better terms, because we can also purchase our share along with the remainder of the entire property.
14 Paulus libro quinto ad Sabinum. Si venditor simulaverit meliorem allatam condicionem, cum minoris vel etiam tantidem alii venderet, utrique emptori in solidum erit obligatus. 1Sed si emptor alium non idoneum subiecit eique fundus addictus est, non video, inquit, quemadmodum priori sit emptus, cum alia venditio et vera postea subsecuta sit. sed verum est venditorem deceptum ex vendito actionem habere cum priore emptore, quanti sua intersit id non esse factum, per quam actionem et fructus, quos prior emptor perceperit et quo deterior res culpa vel dolo malo eius facta sit, recipiet venditor. et ita Labeoni et Nervae placet. 2Sed si neuter subiecit emptorem, maiore autem pretio addictum est praedium ei qui solvendo non est, abitum est a priore emptione, quia ea melior intellegitur quam venditor comprobavit, cui licuit non addicere. 3Sed et si pupillus postea sine tutoris auctoritate emerit, consentiente venditore abibitur a priore emptione. idem et de servo alieno: aliter atque si servo suo vel filio, quem in potestate habet, vel domino rei per errorem id addixerit, quia non est emptio his casibus. quod si alieno servo, quem putaverit liberum esse, addixerit, contra se habebit et erit hic similis egenti. 4Emptorem, qui meliorem condicionem attulerit, praeter corpus nihil sequitur quod venierit. 5Non tamen ideo, si tantundem pretium alius det, hoc ipso, quod fructus eum non sequantur, qui secuturi essent priorem emptorem, melior condicio videtur allata, quia non id agitur inter emptorem et venditorem.
14 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book V. If a vendor pretends that better terms have been offered, while, in fact, the price was lower; and he should sell the property to the party for this, or for the same that had been previously offered, he will be liable to both purchasers for the entire amount. 1Where the purchaser provides another who is not solvent, and the land is adjudged to him, Sabinus says, “I do not see how the property can be purchased by the former, since another and a genuine sale has subsequently been made.” It is true, however, that where the vendor has been deceived, he will be entitled to an action on sale against the first purchaser, to the extent that he was interested in not having this done. By means of this action, the vendor will recover the crops which the first purchaser gathered, as well as damages to the extent that the property was deteriorated by the negligence or fraudulent acts of the latter. This opinion was also held by Labeo and Nerva. 2But where neither of the parties provided the new purchaser, but the land was adjudged to him on account of the larger amount which he offered, even though he may not be solvent, the first purchase is annulled; because what the vendor approved is understood to be more advantageous, since he had the right not to adjudge the property to the last purchaser. 3Where, however, a ward purchases property at a higher bid, without the authority of his guardian, if the vendor accepts his bid the first purchase will be annulled; and the same rule applies to the case of a slave belonging to another. It would be otherwise, however, if the vendor, through mistake, should adjudge the property to his own slave, or to his son who is under his control, or to the owner of the property himself, because there can be no sale under such circumstances. On the other hand, if he should adjudge the property to the slave of another whom he believed to be free, he would be liable; and the case will be similar to that of an insolvent debtor. 4Where a purchaser offers better terms, he acquires nothing except the property which is sold. 5Still, however, better terms are not offered where another party is willing to pay the same price, because he does not obtain the crops which belonged to the first purchaser, since these are not the object of the transaction between a second purchaser and the vendor.
15 Pomponius libro nono ad Sabinum. Si praedio in diem addicto ante diem venditor mortuus sit, sive post diem heres ei exsistat sive omnino non exsistat, priori praedium emptum est, quia melior condicio allata, quae domino placeat, intellegi non potest, cum is qui vendat non exsistat: quod si intra diem adiectionis heres existat, melior condicio ei adferri potest. 1Si fundus in diem addictus fuerit pluris, ut quaedam ei accedant, non quae accesserint priori emptori, si non minoris sint hae res, quam quo pluris postea fundus venierit, prior venditio valet, quasi melior condicio allata non sit: si minoris sint. idemque aestimandum est, si dies longior pretii solvendi data fuerit, ut quaeratur, quantum ex usura eius temporis capi potuerit.
15 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book IX. Where land has been sold conditionally in this manner, and the vendor dies before the expiration of the time, or his heir appears afterwards, or does not appear at all, the land will belong to the first purchaser; because it cannot be understood that better terms have been offered which would be accepted by the owner, since he who sold the property is no longer living. Where, however, the heir appears before the expiration of the time, better terms can be offered to him. 1When a tract of land is sold subject to a condition of this kind, and more has been paid for it with the understanding that such accessories as have not been received by the first purchaser shall be delivered to the second; if these accessories are not less in value than the increase of price of the second sale, the former sale will be valid, because, if they are less, the terms of the second sale will not be more advantageous than those of the first. A similar estimate should also be made where a longer time for -payment is granted the second purchaser, in order that the calculation of the interest may be made for the additional time.
16 Ulpianus libro trigensimo secundo ad edictum. Imperator Severus rescripsit: ‘Sicut fructus in diem addictae domus, cum melior condicio fuerit allata, venditori restitui necesse est, ita rursus quae prior emptor medio tempore necessario probaverit erogata, de reditu retineri vel, si non sufficiat, solvi aequum est’. et credo sensisse principem de empti venditi actione.
16 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXII. The Emperor Severus stated in a Rescript: “Just as where a house is sold under a condition in this manner, the profits must be restored to the vendor, in case of a better offer; so he will be entitled to retain the income from the property where he shows that it is not sufficient to pay the necessary expenses which the first purchaser proves that he has incurred in the meantime.” I think that the Emperor had the action on sale in his mind.
17 Iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum. Cum duo servi duobus separatim denis in diem addicti sint et exstiterit qui pro utroque triginta det, refert, unius pretio decem an singulorum quina adiciat: secundum superiorem adiectionem is servus inemptus erit, cuius pretio adiectio facta fuerit, secundum posteriorem adiectionem uterque ad posteriorem emptorem pertinebit: quod si incertum sit, ad utrius pretium addiderit, a priore emptione non videtur esse discessum.
17 Julianus, Digest, Book XV. Where two slaves have been thus conditionally sold separately for ten aurei, and someone appears who says that he will pay thirty for both; it should be ascertained whether he wishes to add ten to the price of one, or five to the price of each. In the first instance, the slave to whose price the addition is made, will not be bought by the first purchaser, and, in the second instance, both slaves will belong to the second. If it is uncertain to the price of which one an addition is made, it will be held that the first purchase is not annulled.
18 Africanus libro tertio quaestionum. Cum in diem duobus sociis fundus sit addictus, uno ex his pretium adiciente etiam pro ipsius parte a priore venditione discedi rectius existimatur.
18 Africanus, Questions, Book III. Where a tract of land has been sold conditionally in this manner to two partners, and one of them increases the price, it is very properly held that the first sale is annulled, even with reference to the share of the party who increases the amount.
19 Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Fundo in diem addicto si postea pretium adiectum est et venditor alio fundo applicito eum ipsum fundi posteriori emptori addixit et id sine dolo malo fecit, priori emptori obligatus non erit: nam quamvis non id tantum, quod in diem addictum erat, sed aliud quoque cum eo venierit, tamen, si venditor dolo caret, prioris emptoris causa absoluta est: id enim solum intuendum est, an priori venditori bona fide facta sit adiectio.
19 Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. Where a tract of land has been sold dependent upon a better offer being made, and a higher price is subsequently offered, and the vendor adjudges the said tract to the second purchaser, together with another adjoining it, and does this without fraudulent intent; he will not be liable to the former purchaser, even though he not only sold him what was included in the offer at a higher price, but also another tract; still, if the vendor was not guilty of fraud, the transaction with the first purchaser is at an end, for it should only be considered whether the transfer to the second purchaser was made in good faith.
20 Papinianus libro tertio responsorum. Prior emptor post meliorem condicionem oblatam ob pecuniam in exordio venditori de pretio solutam contra secundum emptorem citra delegationem iure stipulationis interpositam agere non potest.
20 Papinianus, Opinions, Book III. The first purchaser, after better terms have been offered by another, cannot bring an action against the second for the money paid to the vendor, unless in compliance with the terms of the stipulation a substitution was made of the second purchaser for payment.