On What Is Just Regarding the Alienation of Property of Minors

could not be held naturally bound by his own agreement, and it would thence become apparent that, by the very law of nature, those two principles, voluntas will and potestas power/capacity, are required for an obligation. Indeed, it seems clear that this hypothesis barely diverges from the spirit of the Civil Laws, as per L. 28. pr. ff. de Pactis Digest on agreements, where the legal expert JCtus jurisconsult/lawyer Gaius expressly admits: original: "Contra Juris Civilis regulas pacta conventa rata non haberi, veluti, si pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate pactus sit &c." Agreements reached are not held as valid against the rules of Civil Law, for example, if a ward has made an agreement without the authority of a tutor. But it is also expressly asserted in L. Pupillus 59. ff. de O. & A. Digest on obligations and actions: original: "Pupillum mutuam pecuniam accipiendo ne jure quidem naturali obligari" That a ward is not even bound by natural law by receiving money as a loan. And finally, what could have been expressed more clearly than what Neratius confessed in L. 41. ff. de Condict. Indeb. Digest on recovery of money not owed: original: "Quod, inquit, Pupillus sine tutoris Auctoritate stipulanti promiserit, solverit, repetitio est, quia NEC NATURA debet." He says, what a ward has promised to one stipulating without the authority of a tutor, if he has paid it, there is a right of recovery, because he does not owe it even by nature. To these could still be added L. 29. ff. d. t. & L. 14. §. 8. ff. de solution.