On What Is Just Regarding the Alienation of Property of Minors

And at the same time, they submit the reason for the decision: "Since a minor having a curator is not considered similar to one to whom, given a curator by the Praetor, the administration of his goods has been interdicted." The reason for the comparison of a minor having a curator with a prodigus spendthrift is indeed notable: for in both, although there may have been consent, the law does not assist that consent, but rather considers it as null regarding them, and thereby brings it about that, according to the style of Paul in L. 110. §. 2. ff. d. R. J. Digest regarding Rules of Law, they do not suffer, that is, they are not held against their will to keep promises.

TH. IX.

That they are not held against their will is added not without reason, for it is always in the power of the ward whether he wishes to depart from that contract or whether he wishes to preserve it, especially if it is a bilateral business, precisely obligated to its fulfillment. Concerning this matter, an elegant text by the author Ulpian occurs in L. Julianus 13. §. 29. ff. de Act. Emt.: "If anyone has bought from a ward without the authority of a tutor, the contract exists on one side; for he who bought is obligated to the ward, but does not obligate the ward to himself." This