emained the same; but the seller was entitled
to something further than the price by way of damages.[2] It was
by the application of this principle that a seller was justified in
demanding more than the current price for an article which possessed
some individual or sentimental value for him. 'In such a case the just
price will depend not only on the thing sold, but on the loss which
the sale brings on the seller.... No man should sell what is not his,
though he may charge for the loss he suffers.'[3] On the other
hand, it was strictly forbidden to raise the price on account of the
individual need of the buyer.[4]
[Footnote 1: II. ii. 78, 2, ad. 7. See _Decret. Greg._, v. 19, _de
usuris_, cc. 6 and 10.]
[Footnote 2: Endemann, _Studien_, vol. ii. pp. 49; Desbuquois, _op.
cit._, p. 174.]
[Footnote 3: II. ii. 77, 1.]
[Footnote 4: _Ibid._]
Sec. 4. _The Just Price of Labour_.
Particular rules were laid down for determining the just price of
certain classes of goods. These need not be treated in detail, as they
were merely applications of the general principle to particular cases,
and whatever interest they possess is in the domain of practice rather
than of theory. In the sale of immovable property the rule was that
the value should be arrived at by a consideration of the annual fruits
of the property.[1] The only one of the particular contracts which
need detain us here is that of a contract of service for wages
(_locatio operarum_). Wages were considered as ruled by the laws
relating to just price. 'That is called a wage (_merces_) which is
paid to any one as a recompense for his work and labour. Therefore,
as it is an act of justice to give a just price for a thing taken from
another person, so also to pay the wages of work and labour is an act
of justice.'[2] Again, 'Remuneration of service or work ... can be
priced at a money value, as may be seen in the case of those who offer
for hire the labour which they exercise by work or by tongue.'[3] Biel
insists that the value of labour is subject to the same influences as
the value of any other commodity which is offered for sale, and that
therefore a just price must be observed in buying it.[4]
[Footnote 1: Caepolla, _de Cont. Sim._, 78; Carletus, _Summa
Angelica_, lxv.]
[Footnote 2: Aquinas, _Summa_, II. ii. 114, 1.]
[Footnote 3: II. ii. 78, 2, ad. 3.]
[Footnote 4: _Op. cit._, IV. xv. 10. Modern Socialists caricature the
correct principle 'that l
|