Question VII: Whether it is lawful to sell above the highest price when payment is deferred, rather than for ready money

Within the limits of the just price they concede it is lawful in common, because that whole price is just. So D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 77. art. 1. Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 20. p. 2. § 8. Caietanus ad art. D. Thomae, Less. lib. 2. cap. 21. dub. 6. num. 50. Rebell. t. 1. 2. p. l. 9. quaest. 15. Molina t. 2. disp. 355. Baffaeus v. Vendit. Fagundez l. 5. cap. 32. and others in common. See also Caspensem disp. 4. sect. 6. But in truth to buy back more cheaply a thing already sold, on account of the delay of the price, when a cheaper price is offered, smells bad, as Tannerus disp. 4. quaest. 7. num. 52. Carbo quaest. 52. Less. dub. 16. Nauar. cap. 23. num. 51. Petr. Nauar. num. 169. says; and even if Baffaeus num. 4. grants it lawful, yet not to enter first into a pact of buying back, because this is a usurious loan.

For in truth to exceed the rigorous price on account of a merely deferred payment is veiled usury. So the cited authors, with D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 2. §. the third fruit is principally of injustice. And §. the second branch principally of avarice. And again D. Thom. quaest. cit. art. 2. ad 7. Toletus l. 5. Summae, cap. 28. Soto l. 6. de iust. quaest. 1. art. 3. and others adduced. The reason is, because to await payment is nothing else than to lend that money which was to be repaid at once for the whole time during which it is awaited; but for a loan it is not lawful to take anything beyond the capital, as S. Bonav. says. Therefore. Whence Fagundez with Soto condemn merchants who at the end of the market days, when the price is cheaper, sell their goods on credit, or awaiting payment, at that rigorous price at which they were being sold at the beginning of the market days.

They ADD, however, that if at the time of payment the goods will be worth more, they can be sold above the present rigorous price, at that price at which they will be sold when he pays. So Lessius l. 2. cap. 21. dub. 6. num. 52. Rebellus 2. p. l. 9. quaest. 11. num. 3. Yet it must be known with certainty.

Some add that this more can be taken even if the seller had not decided to sell those goods at that time.

BUT this is veiled usury, as Couar. l. 2. var. cap. 3. num. 6. Medina C. de restit. quaest. 38. causa quinta, Lessius, Rebellius, and Fagundez. teach.

The REASON is, because it will be to demand the price of another's goods; for the goods belong to the buyer absolutely at that time at which the price grows, for the seller had not thought to have them then.

NOTE finally that it is possible (as is customary in some parts of the world) for goods to be sold at a lesser price for money counted out; because that money, exposed by the seller immediately to business dealings, yields more, whence from the credit and deferral of the money arises ceasing gain, or emerging loss.

From what has been said you will also define: whether prices can be remitted on account of payment anticipated. And indeed within the breadth of the just price it was already defined at the beginning of the question.

THEREFORE from the precise anticipation it is not lawful to go beyond the limits of the just price; nevertheless on account of emerging loss, or ceasing gain, from that money which I pay in advance, and which, spent in business dealings, I would augment, it will be lawful. See Fagundez cap. 33. l. 5. de contract. Caspensem disp. 4. sect. 7.

For THIS reason many Doctors justify that contract of Wools in Spain on account of anticipated payment, below the lowest price. Fagundez num. 8. reports them. The reason is, because those merchants, anticipating that price, would struggle with that money which they pour out in advance. See Molinam Tom. 1. disp. 360.