[ULPIANUS libro uicesimo octauo ad Sabinum. ] §19.1.1.prSi res uendita non tradatur, in id quod interest agitur, hoc est quod rem habere interest emptoris: hoc autem interdum pretium egreditur, si pluris interest, quam res ualet uel empta est.
[ULPIAN, on Sabinus, Book 28] If the thing sold is not delivered, an action is brought for the interest, that is, for what interest the buyer has in having the thing; this, however, sometimes exceeds the price, if his interest is of greater value than what the thing is worth or was bought for.
§19.1.1.1Uenditor si, cum sciret deberi, seruitutem celauit, non euadet ex empto actionem, si modo eam rem emptor ignorauit: omnia enim quae contra bonam fidem fiunt ueniunt in empti actionem.
If the seller, knowing that a servitude was owed, concealed it, he will not escape the action on purchase, provided that the buyer was ignorant of the fact; for everything done contrary to good faith comes within the action on purchase.
sed scire uenditorem et celare sic accipimus, non solum si non admonuit, sed et si negauit seruitutem istam deberi, cum esset ab eo quaesitum.
But we understand the seller's "knowing and concealing" in this way: not only if he did not advise the buyer, but also if he denied that that servitude was owed when he was asked about it.
sed et si proponas eum ita dixisse: 'nulla quidem seruitus debetur, uerum ne emergat inopinata seruitus, non teneor', puto eum ex empto teneri, quia seruitus debebatur et scisset.
But even if you suppose that he said: "Indeed no servitude is owed, but lest an unexpected servitude should emerge, I shall not be liable," I think he is held liable under the action on purchase, because the servitude was owed and he had known it.
sed si id egit, ne cognosceret emptor aliquam seruitutem deberi, opinor eum ex empto teneri.
Moreover, if he acted in such a way that the buyer would not discover that some servitude was owed, I am of the opinion that he is held liable under the action on purchase.
et generaliter dixerim, si improbato more uersatus sit in celanda seruitute, debere eum teneri, non si securitati suae prospectum uoluit.
And generally speaking, I would say that if he acted in an objectionable manner in concealing the servitude, he ought to be held liable, but not if he merely wished to look out for his own security.
haec ita uera sunt, si emptor ignorauit seruitutes, quia non uidetur esse celatus qui scit neque certiorari debuit qui non ignorauit.
These things are true only if the buyer was ignorant of the servitudes, because he who knows is not deemed to have been kept in the dark, nor did he who was not ignorant need to be informed.