De restitutione minorum conclusiones

22. Against prescription, however, even if he does not teach that he was injured, it is confirmed by the common vote of the Doctors that he is to be restored.

23. What if the privileged concur, as if a minor wishes to be restored against a minor, ought he to be heard? And it will have to be inspected who was deceived. Therefore, if both were deceived, as if a minor gave money to a minor, and the latter lost it, the cause of him who received it is better, and he either squandered it or lost it.

24. Plainly, if a person under twenty-five years has contracted with a major son of families, he will be restored in full, so that the consideration of age is held more than that of the Senate-consult. The same must be said regarding the Velleian decree the Senatus consultum Velleianum prohibited women from acting as sureties, if a woman has interceded on behalf of a minor, and the debtor is not solvent.

25. That was gravely treated, whether a minor can seek restitution in full against a sworn contract? And it pleased Salicetus, Baldus, and the remaining Doctors that even in this case the minor should be heard, especially if he was not informed. This we think should be entirely denied with Jason i.e., Jason de Mayno, to such an extent that the benefit is to be denied even to one who was not informed.

26. But if an oath excludes restitution in full, ought he to be heard on the nullity of the contract? And the opinion seems truer of those who think that other defects by virtue of the oath, which do not come by reason of age, are not considered remitted.

27. What if a minor defers an oath to another, ought he to be restored against such an oath? And in this case it is explored law that aid is to be given to the minor.