|
Objection 1: It would seem that the seller is not bound to state the
defects of the thing sold. Since the seller does not bind the buyer to
buy, he would seem to leave it to him to judge of the goods offered for
sale. Now judgment about a thing and knowledge of that thing belong to
the same person. Therefore it does not seem imputable to the seller if
the buyer be deceived in his judgment, and be hurried into buying a
thing without carefully inquiring into its condition.
Objection 2: Further, it seems foolish for anyone to do what
prevents him carrying out his work. But if a man states the defects of
the goods he has for sale, he prevents their sale: wherefore Tully
(De Offic. iii, 13) pictures a man as saying: "Could anything
be more absurd than for a public crier, instructed by the owner, to
cry: 'I offer this unhealthy horse for sale?'" Therefore the
seller is not bound to state the defects of the thing sold.
Objection 3: Further, man needs more to know the road of virtue
than to know the faults of things offered for sale. Now one is not
bound to offer advice to all or to tell them the truth about matters
pertaining to virtue, though one should not tell anyone what is false.
Much less therefore is a seller bound to tell the faults of what he
offers for sale, as though he were counseling the buyer.
Objection 4: Further, if one were bound to tell the faults of what
one offers for sale, this would only be in order to lower the price.
Now sometimes the price would be lowered for some other reason,
without any defect in the thing sold: for instance, if the seller
carry wheat to a place where wheat fetches a high price, knowing that
many will come after him carrying wheat; because if the buyers knew
this they would give a lower price. But apparently the seller need not
give the buyer this information. Therefore, in like manner, neither
need he tell him the faults of the goods he is selling.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Offic. iii, 10): "In all
contracts the defects of the salable commodity must be stated; and
unless the seller make them known, although the buyer has already
acquired a right to them, the contract is voided on account of the
fraudulent action."
I answer that, It is always unlawful to give anyone an occasion of
danger or loss, although a man need not always give another the help or
counsel which would be for his advantage in any way; but only in
certain fixed cases, for instance when someone is subject to him, or
when he is the only one who can assist him. Now the seller who offers
goods for sale, gives the buyer an occasion of loss or danger, by the
very fact that he offers him defective goods, if such defect may
occasion loss or danger to the buyer---loss, if, by reason of this
defect, the goods are of less value, and he takes nothing off the
price on that account---danger, if this defect either hinder the use
of the goods or render it hurtful, for instance, if a man sells a lame
for a fleet horse, a tottering house for a safe one, rotten or
poisonous food for wholesome. Wherefore if such like defects be
hidden, and the seller does not make them known, the sale will be
illicit and fraudulent, and the seller will be bound to compensation
for the loss incurred.
On the other hand, if the defect be manifest, for instance if a horse
have but one eye, or if the goods though useless to the buyer, be
useful to someone else, provided the seller take as much as he ought
from the price, he is not bound to state the defect of the goods,
since perhaps on account of that defect the buyer might want him to
allow a greater rebate than he need. Wherefore the seller may look to
his own indemnity, by withholding the defect of the goods.
Reply to Objection 1: Judgment cannot be pronounced save on what is
manifest: for "a man judges of what he knows" (Ethic. i, 3).
Hence if the defects of the goods offered for sale be hidden, judgment
of them is not sufficiently left with the buyer unless such defects be
made known to him. The case would be different if the defects were
manifest.
Reply to Objection 2: There is no need to publish beforehand by the
public crier the defects of the goods one is offering for sale, because
if he were to begin by announcing its defects, the bidders would be
frightened to buy, through ignorance of other qualities that might
render the thing good and serviceable. Such defect ought to be stated
to each individual that offers to buy: and then he will be able to
compare the various points one with the other, the good with the bad:
for nothing prevents that which is defective in one respect being useful
in many others.
Reply to Objection 3: Although a man is not bound strictly speaking
to tell everyone the truth about matters pertaining to virtue, yet he
is so bound in a case when, unless he tells the truth, his conduct
would endanger another man in detriment to virtue: and so it is in this
case.
Reply to Objection 4: The defect in a thing makes it of less value
now than it seems to be: but in the case cited, the goods are expected
to be of less value at a future time, on account of the arrival of
other merchants, which was not foreseen by the buyers. Wherefore the
seller, since he sells his goods at the price actually offered him,
does not seem to act contrary to justice through not stating what is
going to happen. If however he were to do so, or if he lowered his
price, it would be exceedingly virtuous on his part: although he does
not seem to be bound to do this as a debt of justice.
|
|