Legal Definitions - ex capite minorennitatis et laesionis

The Latin phrase ex capite minorennitatis et laesionis refers to a historical legal principle in Scots law. It describes a specific ground upon which a person, who was a minor (under the legal age of adulthood) at the time, could challenge and reverse legal agreements or "deeds" they had entered into. This challenge was permissible if two conditions were met:

• Minorennitatis (Minority): The individual was legally a minor when the agreement was made.
• Laesionis (Lesion or Harm): The agreement caused them significant harm, disadvantage, or financial detriment.

Essentially, this principle provided a legal safeguard, allowing young people to undo contracts that were unfair or detrimental to their interests because they lacked the maturity or experience to fully understand the implications.

Here are some examples illustrating how this principle would apply:

• Example 1: Disadvantageous Property Sale

  A 16-year-old, having recently inherited a small plot of land, is approached by an experienced adult developer. The developer persuades the teenager to sell the land for a price significantly below its market value, knowing the teenager is inexperienced in property transactions. The teenager, acting as a minor (minorennitatis), enters into the sale agreement. Later, upon reaching adulthood, they realize the substantial financial loss incurred (laesionis). Under the principle of ex capite minorennitatis et laesionis, the individual could have sought to have the sale agreement reversed, arguing they were a minor who suffered significant harm.

• Example 2: Unfair Business Partnership

  A talented 17-year-old artist, eager to launch a career, signs a partnership agreement with an adult business manager. The contract stipulates that the manager receives 90% of all profits from the artist's work, while the artist is responsible for all production costs and liabilities. The artist is a minor (minorennitatis) at the time of signing. The terms of the agreement are overwhelmingly one-sided and financially detrimental, causing clear harm (laesionis). This principle would allow the artist to challenge the partnership agreement, seeking to have it set aside due to their minority and the significant disadvantage suffered.

• Example 3: Predatory Loan Agreement

  A 15-year-old, facing an urgent personal need, borrows a considerable sum of money from an adult acquaintance. The adult drafts a loan agreement with an extremely high interest rate and includes a clause that would forfeit a future inheritance if any payment is missed, terms the minor did not fully grasp. The borrower is a minor (minorennitatis) when the loan is taken out. The predatory interest rate and severe forfeiture clause constitute a significant financial burden and risk, representing clear harm (laesionis). This principle would provide grounds for the minor to challenge the validity of the loan agreement, aiming to have its unfair terms nullified or the agreement entirely reversed.