[ xx ]
an oath should be obtained to confirm the unjust “Power of the Exactor,” it will not encreate his Right; for the Baron's own doctrine (again in another part of his book) affords a sufficient answer to annul every pretence of Obligation on account of “oaths extorted by unjust Fear[1].”
Thus the maxim concerning the necessity of Assent, for which I contend, is sufficiently proved to be a Law of Nature even by the learned Baron's own arguments, and I desire no better.
In consequence of the Baron's general misconception[2], concerning the nec-cessity
- ↑ “But what are we to think of oaths extorted by unjust Fear? Surely the Person who, by means of this Fear, procured a promise upon oath, is no less obliged to release the promise, thus violently obtained, than if no oath had been added to confirm it. Therefore there appears no reason, why Compensation should not be admitted in this cafe, in opposition to the Claim of the injurious Party; according to the rules laid down by us" (says he) “when we treated of the general subject of Fear." Book 4. c. 2. §. 8. p. 272.
- ↑ I have spent the more time in warning my Readers against the Errors of this celebrated Civilian,
what the other person loses by such forced bargain, the necessity of Reparation, in the party who offered the violence, takes of all Obligation to payment in the party who suffered it, &c." Book 3. c. 6. §. 11. p. 225.
