Legal Definitions - majorennitati proximus

The Latin term majorennitati proximus, originating from Scots law, refers to an individual who is near the age of majority.

In legal contexts, particularly concerning contracts or other agreements, this concept acknowledges that a minor who is very close to reaching the legal age of adulthood (typically 18) is presumed to possess a greater degree of maturity, judgment, and understanding compared to a much younger minor. Consequently, it becomes more challenging for such an individual to argue that a contracting party took unfair advantage of their age and inexperience to invalidate an agreement.

• Example 1: Lease Agreement

  Imagine a 17-year-old, just a few months shy of their 18th birthday (the age of majority), signs a lease agreement for an apartment. If they later attempt to break the lease by claiming they were a minor and therefore lacked the legal capacity to enter into such a contract, a court might consider them to be majorennitati proximus. This means their argument of being too young and inexperienced to understand the terms of the lease would be significantly weakened, as they were so close to legal adulthood.

• Example 2: Business Partnership

  Consider a 17-and-a-half-year-old who enters into a formal partnership agreement with an adult to start a small online venture. If the business encounters difficulties and the minor partner tries to withdraw from their obligations by asserting their minority status, the principle of majorennitati proximus could be applied. Their proximity to the age of majority would suggest they had sufficient maturity and understanding to comprehend the responsibilities and risks associated with the partnership, making it harder for them to void the agreement solely based on their age.

• Example 3: Significant Purchase on Credit

  Suppose a 17-year-old purchases an expensive piece of equipment, like a high-end computer, using a credit agreement that requires monthly payments. A few months later, they decide they no longer want the item and attempt to return it, arguing that as a minor, they shouldn't be bound by the credit terms. A court might view this individual as majorennitati proximus, implying that at 17, they were mature enough to understand the financial commitment of a credit purchase. This would make it more difficult for them to unilaterally cancel the contract due to their age.