and the customary wage is ten thousand, then he is liable for ten thousand. This is clear where both parties were unaware. But if they both knew, then they should be dealt with according to what the contract entails, while the excess is placed in the public treasury, so that there may be no manipulation.

If someone were to ask: “When a person takes possession of an asset under an invalid lease, why do we not simply cancel both the contract and the payment and say that he is entitled to nothing—neither the customary wage nor the agreed wage?”

The answer is that this is not possible, because it would be unjust. The owner has been deprived of the benefit of his property for the duration of the lease; if we were to say, “You are entitled to no payment,” we would thereby wrong him. The lessee, meanwhile, has received the benefit; if we were to say to him, “You owe no payment,” we would permit him to unlawfully consume people’s wealth. Therefore, we say: you are liable for the customary wage.

In summary, whenever someone takes possession of an asset under an invalid lease, no consideration is given to the amount stipulated in the contract. The lease is annulled, and recourse is made to the customary wage. If the customary wage is equal to the amount stipulated in the contract, there is no issue. If the customary wage is greater, we require the lessee to pay it. Then, if he was aware, he bears the excess; but if he was unaware and had been misled, the excess is borne by the one who misled him. If the customary wage is less, then, if he was aware, we require him to pay what he undertook to pay, because he entered into it knowingly: he knew that the contract was invalid and committed himself to an amount exceeding the customary wage. But if he was unaware, he is not liable for more than the customary wage. If the judge considers it proper, as a judicial ruling, to require him to pay what he undertook to pay—even if he was unaware—while placing it in the public treasury, there is no objection.