Definition
In civil law, *redhibitio* is the act of returning a purchased thing to the seller on account of a defect that renders it unfit for its intended purpose or substantially diminishes its value. The term names the transactional act itself — the physical and legal return — as distinguished from the right or remedy that authorizes it (redhibition) or the action by which that remedy is pursued (actio redhibitoria). Where redhibition is the remedy, redhibitio is the execution of it: the seller receives the defective thing back, and the buyer is restored to the purchase price.
The concept originates in Roman law, principally developed through the aedilician edicts governing market sales. The Digest (21.1) preserves the core framework, treating redhibitio as the undoing of the sale in response to hidden defects — latent faults the buyer could not have discovered through ordinary inspection at the time of purchase.
Common Confusion
REDHIBITIO / REDHIBITION / ACTIO REDHIBITORIA: These three terms are closely related and easily conflated in civil law sources. *Redhibitio* is the act of return itself. *Redhibition* (the anglicized form) refers to the remedy or legal institution that entitles a buyer to rescind a defective sale — it is the right or doctrine. The *actio redhibitoria* is the formal legal action the buyer brings to compel or effectuate that return. Researchers reading historical sources must attend to which concept a given passage addresses; older texts often use *redhibitio* loosely to encompass all three.
A secondary textual confusion appears in Burrill's own entry: some manuscript copies of Digest 21.1.21 read *rehabitio* (a "re-having," meaning the seller re-acquires the thing) where others read *redditio* (a returning or restoring). The distinction is subtle but points to the same transaction viewed from opposite ends — the buyer's act of returning versus the seller's act of recovering. Burrill flags this variant without resolving it, and researchers consulting the Digest directly should be aware the readings differ across editions.
Why It Matters in Research
*Redhibitio* appears most frequently in civil law jurisdictions and in sources derived from the Roman law tradition — Louisiana, Quebec, France, Spain, and their historical predecessors. In common law research it will be rare, confined primarily to comparative law discussions or to scholarship on the Roman law roots of warranty doctrine.
When working in Louisiana materials particularly, the distinction between *redhibitio* as the act and *redhibition* as the remedy carries practical weight: Louisiana Civil Code articles on redhibition (historically Articles 2520–2548 in pre-1993 codifications, revised thereafter) use the anglicized form, but older Louisiana jurisprudence and civilian treatises may revert to the Latin. A researcher who encounters *redhibitio* in a 19th-century Louisiana opinion should treat it as equivalent to the act of rescission-by-return, not as a general warranty concept.
In Roman law sources, *redhibitio* operates under strict time limits set by the aedilician edict — traditionally six months for the redhibitory action — a limitation that carries forward into various civil law codifications in modified form. When tracing the development of defective-goods remedies through historical sources, the time-bar attached to *redhibitio* is a key doctrinal marker distinguishing it from the longer-period *actio quanti minoris* (price-reduction action), which allowed the buyer to keep the defective thing and recover a portion of the price.
The Digest citation at 21.1.21 is the primary anchor. Researchers should note that Book 21, Title 1 of the Digest is the principal locus for aedilician edict material on defective sales, and cross-referencing Burrill's entry against a reliable edition of the Digest (Mommsen-Krueger is standard) will clarify the *redditio/rehabitio* textual variant Burrill mentions.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's entry is spare but precise. It correctly identifies *redhibitio* as derived from *redhibere* and defines it by reference to *redditio* (a returning), citing Digest 21.1.21 directly. The entry does useful work by flagging the manuscript variant (*rehabitio*) — a detail many abridged legal dictionaries omit — and directs readers forward to the entry for Redhibition for substantive doctrine.
What Burrill does not supply, and what a researcher should seek elsewhere, is the doctrinal framework: the conditions triggering redhibitio (latency of defect, materiality, the seller's knowledge or deemed knowledge), the procedural posture of the actio redhibitoria, and the time limits governing the action. For those, the Digest itself and civilian commentary — Pothier's treatise on sale, Domat's civil law — remain the foundational sources. In Louisiana-specific research, Planiol and civilian annotators of the Louisiana Civil Code fill the gap Burrill leaves open.
No other historical dictionary in the present corpus covers *redhibitio* as a distinct headword; Burrill appears to be the sole dedicated entry at this level of the collection.
Jurisdictional Note
*Redhibitio* and its associated doctrine are native to civil law systems. Louisiana is the primary American jurisdiction where redhibition operates as a live legal remedy with statutory footing. Common law jurisdictions address the same underlying problem — defective goods sold — through implied warranty of merchantability and related UCC provisions, without using the civil law terminology.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Redhibition
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Sale of Goods (Civil Law Traditions)
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Aedilician Edicts