[AFRICANUS libro octauo quaestionum. ] §21.1.51.prCum mancipium morbosum uel uitiosum seruus emat et redhibitoria uel ex empto dominus experiatur, omnimodo scientiam serui, non domini spectandam esse ait, ut nihil intersit, peculiari an domini nomine emerit et certum incertumue mandante eo emerit, quia tunc et illud ex bona fide est seruum, cum quo negotium sit gestum, deceptum non esse, et rursus delictum eiusdem, quod in contrahendo admiserit, domino nocere debet.
[AFRICANUS in the eighth book of his Questions.] When a slave buys a diseased or defective slave, and the master brings an action for rescission or an action on purchase, he says that in every case the knowledge of the slave, not of the master, must be looked to, so that it makes no difference whether he bought in the name of his peculium or in the name of his master, and whether he bought a specific or an unspecified object by his master's mandate; because in that case it is also a matter of good faith that the slave with whom the business was transacted was not deceived, and on the other hand, the wrongdoing of the same slave committed in contracting ought to prejudice the master.
sed si seruus mandatu domini hominem emerit, quem dominus uitiosum esse sciret, non tenetur uenditor.
But if a slave, by mandate of his master, buys a slave whom the master knew to be defective, the seller is not liable.
§21.1.51.1Circa procuratoris personam, cum quidem ipse scierit morbosum uitiosum esse, non dubitandum, quin, quamuis ipse domino mandati uel negotiorum gestorum actione sit obstrictus, nihilo magis eo nomine agere possit: at cum ipse ignorans esse uitiosum mandatu domini qui id sciret emerit et redhibitoria agat, ex persona domini utilem exceptionem ei non putabat opponendam.
With regard to the person of an agent, when he himself knew that the slave was diseased or defective, there is no doubt that, although he himself is liable to his master by an action on mandate or of business management, he can no more bring an action on that account; but when he himself, being ignorant that the slave was defective, buys by mandate of a master who knew it, and brings an action for rescission, he did not think that an equitable plea based on the person of the master should be opposed to him.