[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo quinto ad edictum. ] §40.12.16.primmo eum, qui finxit se seruum et sic ueniit decipiendi emptoris causa.
[ULPIANUS on the Edict, book fifty-five.] nay rather, him who pretended to be a slave and was thus sold for the purpose of deceiving the buyer.
§40.12.16.1Si tamen ui metuque compulsus fuit hic qui distractus est, dicemus eum dolo carere.
If, however, this person who was sold was compelled by force and fear, we shall say that he is free from malice.
§40.12.16.2Tunc habet emptor hanc actionem, cum liberum esse nesciret: nam si scit liberum et sic emit, ipse se circumuenit.
The buyer has this action only when he did not know that the person was free; for if he knows he is free and thus buys him, he has cheated himself.
§40.12.16.3Quare si filius familias emit, si quidem ipse scit, pater ignorauit, non adquisiit patri actionem: hoc si peculiari nomine egerit.
Therefore, if a son-in-power buys, if indeed he himself knows but his father was ignorant, he does not acquire the action for his father; this is the case if he acted in the name of his peculium.
ceterum si patre mandante, hic quaeritur, an filii scientia noceat: et puto adhuc nocere, quemadmodum procuratoris nocet.
But if it was by the father's mandate, here it is asked whether the knowledge of the son is prejudicial; and I think it is still prejudicial, just as that of a procurator is.
plane si filius ignorauit, pater scit, adhuc dico repellendum patrem, etiamsi peculiari nomine filius emit, si modo pater praesens fuit potuitque filium emere prohibere.
Clearly, if the son was ignorant but the father knew, I still say that the father must be barred, even if the son bought in the name of his peculium, provided only that the father was present and could have forbidden the son to buy.