Question VI: Whether on account of ceasing profit, or emerging loss, the price can be raised above the maximum

I ASSERT that this is lawful. So Fagundez l. 5. cap. 31. Less. l. 2. cap. 21. dub. 4. num. 18. Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 7. num. 36. Couar. l. 2. var. cap. 3. num. 6. Valentia quaest. 10. p. 2. Therefore, if someone has wheat which he wishes to sell only in the month of May, when now urged to sell, he can demand the price which it will be worth in May, deducting the danger of corruption and deterioration, and by prudent judgment where there is greater danger for the provider, etc. But in truth it is not lawful to sell for that time of year at which it will be worth more; for it is uncertain at what time of year it will be worth more, and the avaricious are often deceived by deferring to May, etc. Wherefore the seller assumes a certain gain, and leaves the danger to the buyer, which is usury, as D. Bonav. teaches, cap. 1. of the Speculum, and Fagundez book 5. chapter 37, and Bassaeus v. Venditio, num. 5.

HENCE you will easily resolve another question, whether it is lawful to demand something above the just price on account of the danger of the capital, to which the seller is sometimes exposed on credit.

They proclaim this usurious: Scotus de iust. l. 6. quaest. 4. art. 1. disp. 2. Nauar. cap. 23. num. 81. Lopes in Instruct. p. 2. cap. 120. Palacius de contract. l. 4. cap. 3. concl. 8. Garcias de contract. l. 1. cap. 23. Toletus de septem peccatis, cap. 5. Azorius p. 1. l. 8. cap. 8. quaest. 7. Rebell. de oblig. Iust. p. 2. l. 9. quaest. 12. This opinion is safe and to be counseled, as Caspens. says, for the following one is dangerous and opens the way to usuries. Bassaeus subscribes, num. 11. The reason is, because these are the fruits of merchants.

The OPPOSITE opinion seems probable: Medina de restit. quaest. 38. causa tertia, and 4. Petto Nauar. l. 3. de restit. cap. 2. p. 1. dub. 11. and p. 2. cap. 3. dub. 10. Valentia Tom. 3. disp. 5. quaest. 20. p. 2. Sà v. venditio, Rodriquez p. 2. cap. 83. Lessius l. 2. cap. 21. dub. 6. num. 54. and others whom he cites, and Sancarellus follows, p. 1. quaest. 47. num. 17. and Salas tract. de usuris, disp. 27. and Diana p. 1. tract. 8. resol. 57. — provided, however, that in the contract it is explained to the buyer that something is taken on account of the danger; which condition is always necessary in every excess of ceasing gain or emerging loss, as Molina notes, disp. 356. and Caspens. disp. 4. sect. 6, so that it be a true danger, and then, he says, it must be reckoned into the price.

Others ADD that the merchant must not propose this danger while inviting the buyer, and first seek a command of faith, or a pledge, to secure it; otherwise, let him demand something on account of the danger.

HENCE step by step you will define: whether a merchant who foresees that abundance will shortly arrive with the incoming supply of goods, and that a loss will arise for himself, can now sell his merchandise immediately at the current price.

The FIRST opinion denies it. So Conradus de contract. quaest. 63. and 64. Ioan. Medina C. de restit. quaest. 35. after Cicero with Antipater l. 3. de off.

They PROVE it, because imminent abundance is considered present; for things little distant in time are considered present in law. Therefore also the Evangelists, relating the consecration of the Eucharist, say: This is the blood, which will be shed for you, Matth 26. Luke 22; namely of the body Luke says: Which is given for you; and yet at the same time both the blood was shed and the body dead, or rather the blood shed first, in which the soul is dispositively, or conservatively.

Yet the OPPOSITE they judge: D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 77. art. 3. ad 4. Caietanus there, Syluester under the word emptio, quaest. 15. Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 2. punct. 4. Tanner. disp 4. quaest. 7. num. 53. Scotus l. 6. quaest. 3. art. 2. ad 3. Couar. ad regulam peccatum, 2. p. §. 4. Molina t. 2. disp. 354. Less. l. 2. cap. 21. dub. 5. num. 4. Pinellus l. 2. C. de rescind. vendit. p. 3. cap. 2. num. 24. Fagundez l. 5. cap. 31. de contract. num. 10. Faustus in speculo conf. disp 6. quaest. 15. Molfes. t. 2. tract. 12. cap. 5. num. 69. Nauar. de restit. l. 3. cap. 2. num. 67. Caspens. disp. 4. sect. 9. Diana p. 1. tract. 8. resol. 40. and others among these.

OPTIMAL is the reason which I gather from D. Bonaventura serm. ultimo Hexaëmer. and on cap. 10. of Wisdom, where he notes that it is ascribed to divine Wisdom and to its holy sagacity, that Joseph should gather the grain in the time of abundance from the kingdom of Egypt at a price remitted, and store it to sell more dearly in the time of impending scarcity, Genes. 41. Therefore it is lawful to do these things; otherwise that holy Patriarch would have sinned, and would have been bound to restitution, as Fagundez infers, num. 10 — which is absurd, since Wisdom cap. 10. ascribes all those actions of his to himself as Divine Wisdom. Add moreover that Joseph did this that he might come to the aid of the people in scarcity — which is fictitious, as S. Bonav. says, cap. 2. of the Speculum animae, §. 35, the fruits are principally of justice.

I INFER, however, with D. Bonav. in speculo animae, cap. 2. Molina cited, Rebell. t. 1. de oblig. iustitiae, l. 9. quaest. 6. num. 5. Fagundez num. 14, that it would be against justice and charity if by deceit, fraud, or lying he induced buyers, whence a great loss would follow for them from so much merchandise imprudently amassed together. Some indeed add, with Diana p. 1. Tract. 8. resol. 46. — if asked about the arrival of the goods, etc., whereby the price becomes cheap, both the one denying, even if he knows, that he is not bound to restitution, if the other buys dearly.

SIMILARLY it seems to be against charity, if he gives so great a multitude of those goods to one man, to whom, with abundance pressing in, a grave loss in reselling would fall.

Fagundez num. 21. ADDS finally: if the goods, say wine, oil, and wheat, belonged to some magistrate who knew from the Prince that a law was to be promulgated diminishing the goods or the monies, and he warned his own, that it would be expedient for them immediately to dispose of the goods or monies soon to be suddenly cast down, these would be held to restitution, even if it were the Prince himself, because from justice they are bound to procure goods for all the subjects. So also Rebell. 2. p. l. 9. quaest. 6. Less. l. 2. cap. 21. dub. 5. num. 48. and others. Nevertheless the opposite is taught by Turrian. 2. 2. disp. 18. dub. 3., citing others. And Couar. in regulam peccatum, p. 2. §. 4., nor does Diana dissent, p. 1. Tract. 8. resol. 42.