with the Commentary of Medhatithi 230 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 236 из 350Следующая ⇒

VERSE 8.216

Section XXXVI - Non-Payment of Wages

आर्तस्तु कुर्यात् स्वस्थः सन् यथाभाषितमादितः ।
स दीर्घस्यापि कालस्य तत्लभेतेव वेतनम् ॥२१६॥

ārtastu kuryāt svasthaḥ san yathābhāṣitamāditaḥ |
sa dīrghasyāpi kālasya tatlabheteva vetanam ||216||

But if he is ill and on recovering, completes the work as originally stipulated, he shall receive his wages for it, even after a long time. — (216)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Forfeiture of the wages has been declared to be the penalty for the man when not ill; the present verse lays down the law regarding one who is ill.

If the labourer falls ill and gives up work after it has been half-done, — hut, on recovering, comes hack and completes the task as originally stipulated, — in this case, even though he may have taken a long time to recover from illness and return to work, the man shall, receive his wages, on having completed the work. — (210).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 24a): — in Kṛtyakalpataru (102a), winch adds the explanation that the man who had stopped the work through some disability — if, on recovery, he comes and completes the stipulated work, then, if it were done after a lapse of time, he should receive his wages.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.215-217)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.215.

VERSE 8.217

Section XXXVI - Non-Payment of Wages

यथोक्तमार्तः सुस्थो वा यस्तत् कर्म न कारयेत् ।
न तस्य वेतनं देयमल्पोनस्यापि कर्मणः ॥२१७॥

yathoktamārtaḥ sustho vā yastat karma na kārayet |
na tasya vetanaṃ deyamalponasyāpi karmaṇaḥ ||217||

When a man, sick or well, does not get the stipulated work done, he shall not receive hi s wages, — even though the work be only slightly incomplete. — (217)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If the employer does not dismiss the man, when he has fallen ill, after having paid off his wages for the part of the work done, — then he should, after recovery, be made to finish the work. But if the employer should say — ‘I have no work for you,’ then he should receive his wages in accordance with the part of the work that he may have done. — (217)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 797), which explains ‘Yathoktam’ as ‘as agreed upon’; — in Mitākṣarā (2.198), to the effect that — ‘if the man, — on recovery, if he has been ill, or even while he is in perfect health’, — does not complete the task of which only a little is left undone, — either himself or through some one else, — then he should not be given any wages at all — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (102a), which explains ‘kārayet’ as ‘gets it done by another person’, and ‘alponasyāpi’ as ‘even though only a very little be wanting in the completion of the work.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.215-217)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.215.

VERSE 8.218

Section XXXVI - Non-Payment of Wages

एष धर्मोऽखिलेनोक्तो वेतनादानकर्मणः ।
अत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि धर्मं समयभेदिनाम् ॥२१८॥

eṣa dharmo'khilenokto vetanādānakarmaṇaḥ |
ata ūrdhvaṃ pravakṣyāmi dharmaṃ samayabhedinām ||218||

Thus has the entire law bearing upon the action of ‘Non-payment of Wages’ been explained. After this I am going to expound the law relating to Contract-breakers. — (218)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘vetanādānakarmaṇaḥ’ ‘the action of nonpayment of wages,’ only names the particular Head of Dispute; hence there is no room for any such objection as the following — “How is it that the text speaks of having dealt with the action of non-payment of wages, — when the action of payment also has been dealt with?” — Because there is nothing wrong in the naming of a subject in accordance with anything that may he related to it; and every little detail does not necessarily enter into its name, for instance, in the Agni-hotra-rites, even though libations are actually offered to both Agni and Prajāpati, it is called ‘Agnihotra,’ ‘offering to Agni’; and similarly in the case of all such names as ‘Sthūṇā,’ ‘Darśa’ and so forth?

‘Contract’ is agreement, the stipulation or promise, in the form — ‘I shall certainly do such and such a thing, exactly in the manner in which you wish.’ The ‘breakers’ of this are those who go against it.

What is referred to here is what has been mentioned above (under the Heads of Dispute) as ‘Breach of Contract?’

The first half of the verse sums up the foregoing section and the latter introduces the next. — (218)

VERSE 8.219 [Breach of Contract]

Section XXXVII - Breach of Contract

यो ग्रामदेशसङ्घानां कृत्वा सत्येन संविदम् ।
विसंवदेन्नरो लोभात् तं राष्ट्राद् विप्रवासयेत् ॥२१९॥

yo grāmadeśasaṅghānāṃ kṛtvā satyena saṃvidam |
visaṃvadennaro lobhāt taṃ rāṣṭrād vipravāsayet ||219||

If a man, after having entered into a compact under oath with a village, a country or a confederation, should break it, through greed, — him the king shall banish from his kingdom. — (219)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Village’ — is a group of households; and the term here stands for the inhabitants of the village; as it is only among men that there can he a compact. Similarly ‘country’ is a group of villages.

‘Confederation’ — a combination formed by persons professing the same faith or path, even though inhabiting different countries and belonging to different castes. For instance, there is the ‘confederation of mendicants,’ the ‘confederation of traders,’ the ‘confederation of persons learned in the Vedas,’ and so forth.

There are several kinds of business is which inhabitants of villages, etc., make a combination among themselves. For instance — ‘our village is being encroached upon by the inhabitants of another village, — very frequently they graze their cattle on our pasture-lands, — they cut our embankments and carry away water, — if you be all agreed, then we shall prevent their doing all this, — and when we prevent them, it is possible that we may come to blows, or may have to appear before the ‘court; — if we remain combined in all this, then we shall go forward to prevent the encroachment; otherwise we shall let it be.’ On this compact being proposed, men may agree to it, saying — ‘yes; why should the ancient privileges of our village be trespassed by them?’ Now, after having thus entered the compact and encouraged it, if some one were to shirk away and make common cause with the other party, and become lukewarm towards his own neighbours, — such a person should be banished by the king from his kingdom; i.e., he should not be allowed to live there any longer.

Similarly, in regard to the business of tradespeople or Brāhmaṇas and others, when once a man has entered into a compact, he should not break it.

The penalty here laid down pertains to the breach of compacts relating to such work as is of public utility, in due accordance with law and custom, and not detrimental to the interests of the city and kingdom at large.

‘Through greed — ‘greed’ here stands for succumbing to one’s own selfish interests as served by the inhabitants of the rival village.

For cases of such breach, through ignorance, there is another remedy. — (219)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 253), which explains ‘satyena’ as ‘by swearing’; — in ‘Mitākṣarā (2.187), which adds that this applies to cases where the cause of action is slight; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 182), which adds the following notes: — ‘Grāma’, is well-known; — ‘deśa’ consists of a group of villages, a district; — ‘saṅgha’ is a corporation composed of several persons following one ‘dharma,’ living in different places. It is also quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (107a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 132a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.219-221)

Viṣṇu (5.168). — ‘He who violates the established rule shall be banished.’

Yājñavalkya (2.186-192). — ‘If one misappropriates the property of a corporate body, or breaks the conditions of agreement, the King shall confiscate his entire property and banish him from the kingdom. What is declared by the members of the corporation should be obeyed by all component members; if any of them act contrariwise, he should be fined the first amercement....... This same rule applies to guilds, trading companies, corporations of heretics and other corporate bodies.’

Nārada (10.2-7). — ‘Among heretics, followers of the Veda, guilds, corporations, troops, assemblages and other associations, the King shall maintain their usages and customs — whatever be their laws, their duties, their rules regarding attendance, and the particular inodes of livelihood prescribed for them, that the

King shall approve of. The King shall prevent them from undertaking such acts as would be detrimental to the interests, either of their own associations or of the King himself, or despicable in their very nature. Mixed assemblages, unlawful wearing of arms and mutual attacks among these persons shall not be tolerated by the King. Those who cause dissension among the members of an association, shall undergo punishment of a specially severe kind.’

Bṛhaspati (17.5, 10-16). — ‘A compact formed among villages, companies of artisans, and associations is called an agreement; such an agreement must be observed both in times of distress and for acts of piety. Two, three or five persons shall be appointed as advisers to the association; their advice shall be taken by the villagers, companies, corporations and other fellowships. When a stipulation has been entered in a document in the form, “The construction of a house or a shed, temple...... shall be undertaken by us in proportionate shares,” — that is lawful agreement. Such an agreement must be kept by all. he who fails in his agreement, though able to perform it, shall be punished with confiscation of his entire property and by banishment from the town. For one who has fallen out with his associates, or neglects his duties by them, a fine is ordained, amounting to six Niṣkas of four Suvarṇas each. He who injures the joint stock, or insults a Brāhmaṇa learned in the three Vedas, or breaks the mutual agreement, shall be banished from the town. An acrimonious or malicious person, and one who causes dissension or does violent acts, or who is inimically disposed towards the company, association or the King, shall be banished instantly from the town. Whatever is obtained by one man shall belong to all in common; whether it has been acquired a six-month or a month ago, it shall be divided in due proportion.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, pp. 793-795). — ‘One who is addicted to acts of violence, one who sows dissension among the members of the corporation, and one who ruins the property of the corporation, — all these should be extirpated, after being proclaimed as such; — so says Bhṛgu. Whatever has been acquired for the corporation, belongs to all the members in equal shares.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 180). — ‘Whatever laws may have been prescribed for associations, the members thereof shall do all acts according to them, remaining firm in their duties.’

VERSE 8.220

Section XXXVII - Breach of Contract

निगृह्य दापयेच्चैनं समयव्यभिचारिणम् ।
चतुःसुवर्णान् षण्निष्कांश्शतमानं च राजकम् ॥२२०॥

nigṛhya dāpayeccainaṃ samayavyabhicāriṇam |
catuḥsuvarṇān ṣaṇniṣkāṃśśatamānaṃ ca rājakam ||220||

Having caught such a breaker of compact, he shall make him pay six ‘niṣkas’ of four ‘suvarṇas’ each, and also one silver ‘śatamāna.’ — (220)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Having caught him,’ i.e., detected and put him under restraint — tho king should punish him, without giving him any time.

The ‘niṣka of four suvarṇas each’ — is that which is made up of four ‘suvarṇas.’

Though under 8.317, the ‘niṣka’ has been defined as a measure consisting of four ‘suvarṇas,’ yet the qualification is added here in view of other definitions of the ‘niṣka’ found in other Smṛtis — e.g., one of them describes it as consisting of ‘a hundred suvarṇas.’

It might be argued that, in as much as the author himself has applied the name ‘niṣka’ to four ‘suvarṇas’ only, the mere mention of the name in the present text would be enough to show what is meant.

But, since the work is a metrical treatise, the presence of a superfluous epithet cannot be regarded as a defect.

Others have taken the term ‘catuḥsuvarṇa’ as a Bahuvrīhi compound, having the collective force, and hence explained the verse as prescribing three fines; the meaning being that the fine is to consist of ‘four suvarṇas,’ and ‘six niṣkas’; so that ten niṣkas come to be indicated.

But for the purpose of making the compound a Bahuvrīhi, it would be necessary to fasten the sense of possession on to that of association. For mere association with ‘variegated cows’ does not make Devadatta a ‘Citraguḥ’ (which is a Bahuvrīhi compound meaning possessing variegated cows).

If the fines are to be taken as three distinct ones, then the only construction possible is to take the three as constituting a single penalty.

The penalty hero prescribed is alternative to ‘banishment’ (prescribed in the preceding verse). — (220)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to ‘others’ mentioned by Medhātithi, ‘four Suvarṇas, or six Niṣkas, or one Śatamāna; Kullūka and Rāghavānanda also think it possible that three separate fines may be inflicted according to the circumstances of the case.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 182), which adds the following notes: — ‘Nigṛhya,’ having him hauled up; — ‘catuḥsuvarṇān’ qualifying ‘ṣaṭ niṣkān’ means ‘six of those Niṣkas which consists of 4 Suvarṇas each the epithet ‘catuḥsuvarṇān’ being added for the exclusion of the other two measures of the ‘Niṣkas’ that are found in the Śāstras — viz. (a) ‘the Niṣka consists of 108 Suvarṇas,’ (b) ‘the Niṣka consists of 5 Suvarṇas.’ — ‘Śatamāna’ consists of 320 Raktikās.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.187), which notes that herein Manu mentions four penalties — (1) Banishment (verse 219), (2) fine of four Suvarṇas, (3) fine of 6 Niṣkas and (4) fine of one Śatamāna; and any one of these may be inflicted in accordance with the peculiar circumstances of each case, such as the caste, the capacity and other things of the persons concerned.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 253), which also regards the four as distinct penalties, to be determined according to the caste, learning and other qualifications of the persons concerned; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (107a), which says that ‘Śatamāna’ is equal to 320 Rattis; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 132a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.219-221)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.219.

VERSE 8.221

Section XXXVII - Breach of Contract

एतद् दण्डविधिं कुर्याद् धार्मिकः पृथिवीपतिः ।
ग्रामजातिसमूहेषु समयव्यभिचारिणाम् ॥२२१॥

etad daṇḍavidhiṃ kuryād dhārmikaḥ pṛthivīpatiḥ |
grāmajātisamūheṣu samayavyabhicāriṇām ||221||

This is the law of punishment which the king shall follow in the case of the breakers of compacts relating to villages and caste-federations. — (221)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Caste-federations’ — federations of various castes, or of men belonging to the same caste; — those who break compacts relating to these federations.

This verse sums up the section: — (221)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 253); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 182), which explains ‘Jātisamūha’ as ‘community of several castes’: — in Kṛtyakalpataru (107a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 132a), which adds that the penalty to be imposed in each case is to be determined by considerations of caste, learning and other qualifications of the culprit.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.219-221)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.219.

VERSE 8.222 [Rescission of Sale]

Section XXXVIII - Rescission of Sale

क्रीत्वा विक्रीय वा किं चिद् यस्यैहानुशयो भवेत् ।
सोऽन्तर्दशाहात् तद् द्रव्यं दद्याच्चैवाददीत वा ॥२२२॥

krītvā vikrīya vā kiṃ cid yasyaihānuśayo bhavet |
so'ntardaśāhāt tad dravyaṃ dadyāccaivādadīta vā ||222||

If, after having bought or sold anything, one should repent of it, he may return or take back that thing within ten days. — (222)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of goods whereof buying and soiling are constantly going on, which do not deteriorate, either in quantity or in quality or in price — such, for instance, as vessels of copper, tin and other metals, — whose value remains constant, — if it has not been brought into use, it can be returned or taken hack within ten days.

When such things as fruits and flowers, which cannot last long, have been bought at fairs and such gatherings, the ‘repentance’ should be at the same moment, or on the same day, or the next.

After that, if the purchaser repents — ‘this thing I have bought is of no use to me,’ — then he should return it within ten days. Similarly, if the repentance is on the part of the seller — ‘I have not done well in selling the thing,’ — then the buyer should be made to return it to him.

The period here allowed is for the case of persons inhabiting the same place. In the case of parties belonging to different places, the returning must be done at the very time of the purchase.

Some people hold that the rule here laid down pertains to such goods as cattle, land and the like, and not to clothes and such articles.

In another Smṛti, a different rule has been laid down in regard to the buying and selling. Xārada says as follows: — ‘Having bought a merchandise for a certain price, if one thinks that he has not done well in buying it, he should return it, unharmed, to the seller, on the same day; if he return it on the second day, the buyer should suffer the third part of the price paid; on the third day, he loses the double of the third part, and on the fourth day the thing must remain with the buyer’ — (Nārada 9. 2-3).

Anything that is laid out for sale is called ‘merchandise,’ by selling which the seller gets a price, with which he buys something else, and thus makes a living for himself. Such an article is spread out in the market by the trader. Now from the use of this particular term in the text of Nārada, it is clear that something very special is meant; for, otherwise, the text quoted would mean the same thing as the foregoing text — ‘Having bought a thing at a certain price, etc.’ (Nārada 9.1).

Now the question arises — What is this something special that is meant?

Our answer is as follows: — The rule laid down by Nārada is meant to be applicable to the case where the article, even after being bought, still continues to remain ‘merchandise,’ in the sense that it is laid out for sale by the tradesman who bought it from a fellow-trader only for selling it on his own account — i.e., in cases of mutual transactions among tradesmen themselves; while the rule propounded by Manu is meant to apply to all other cases. Such is the explanation given by some people.

Now, what is the right view on this point?

In each individual case, one should act according to the nature of the article concerned, or according to local usage. Thus it is that we And such practices as the trying of the pace of a horse, the applying of the goad to the elephant, the discussion of the nature of sales effected and so on.

In the text of Nārada quoted above, the term ‘unharmed’ means not spoilt or destroyed. In the case of ‘deposits’ in the shape of cloths and such things, the depositor receives the value of only that part of it which has been spoilt, and the remnant he takes back all right. While in the case of ‘sales’ even the slightest harm makes the buyer liable to pay the whole price. — (222)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka, the rule refers to things which are not easily spoilt, such as land, copper etc., not to flowers, fruit and the like; — according to Nārāyaṇa, to grain and seeds.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.177), which adds that this refers to such things as get spoilt by use, — e.g., houses beds, seats etc; — and not to seeds, metals, beasts of burden, gems, slave-girls, milking animals and slaves, for whom Yājñavalkya prescribes a period of 10, 1, 5, 7, 30, 3 and 15 days respectively. It goes on to add that the provision here made is applicable to only those cases where the commodity was purchased without proper examination; in cases where it has been duly tested and examined before purchase, the transaction cannot be rescinded. — The verse is quoted again on 2.254.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 831); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 190), which adds the following notes: — ‘Anuśayaḥ,’ desire to withdraw, or, as some people hold, repentance; — ‘dadyāt’, should return, — i.e. the buyer to the seller; — ‘ādodīta,’ should take back, i.e., t he seller from the buyer; — this refers to such things as are likely to be spoilt by use, such as houses, fields, conveyances and so forth, — as also seeds; but not metals, beasts of burden and such other tilings.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 515), which adds that what is stated here refers to things other than those enumerated by Yājñavalkya (2.177); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 947); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 88); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (108b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.222-223)

Yājñavalkya (2.177). — ‘Grains should be tested within ten days of purchase; metals within a day; beasts of burden within five days: gems, within seven days; female slaves, within a month; milch cattle, within three days; male slaves, within a fortnight, [and the sale may be rescinded within these specified periods].’

Arthaśāstra (p. 91). — ‘Having sold a commodity, if the vendor fails to hand it over he should be fined 12 Paṇas; except when there is some defect in the commodity itself, or when some sudden calamity befalls him, or when the price agreed upon is excessively low, by reason of the vendor being in a distressed state of mind. Merchants may he granted one night for reconsidering their purchase; cultivators, three nights; cattle-tenders, five nights; persons of the mixed and higher castes, seven nights, in the case of the selling of the means of their livelihood. In the case of commodities liable to damage by lapse of time, rescission of sale may he permitted only to such an extent as may not spoil the commodities concerned. After having made a purchase, if the buyer refuses to accept the article, he should be fined 12 Paṇas, except when there are defects in the commodity itself, or when some sudden calamity has befallen him, or when the price agreed upon is excessively high, paid by him on account of the distressed state of his mind. Rescission by the buyer also should be permitted in the same manner as in the case of the vendor.’

Nārada (8.4-9). — ‘If a man sells property for a certain price, and does not hand it over to the purchaser, he shall have to pay its produce, if it is immovable, and the profits arising on it, if it is movable property. If there has been a fall in the market-value of the article in question in the interval, the purchaser shall receive the article itself, and together with it the difference (in point of value). This rule applies to those who are inhabitants of the same place; but to those who travel abroad, the profits arising from dealing in foreign countries shall be made over as well. If the article sold should have been injured, or destroyed by fire, or carried off, the loss shall be charged to the seller, because he did not deliver it immediately after the sale. When a man shows one thing which is faultless but delivers another thing which has a blemish, ho shall be compelled to pay twice its value to the purchaser, and an equal amount as fine to the King. So when a man sells something to one person, and afterwards delivers it to another person, he shall be compelled to pay twice its value to the purchaser and a fine to the King. When a purchaser does not accept an article purchased by himself, which is delivered to him by the vendor, the vendor commits no wrong in selling it to another person.’

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности