Legal Definitions - per minas

The Latin term per minas translates to "by threats" or "through threats." In a legal context, it refers to actions, agreements, or decisions made by an individual who was compelled to do so because of threats or intimidation. This concept is closely related to duress, where a person is forced to act against their own free will due to unlawful pressure.

When an action is taken "per minas," it means that the individual's consent or decision was not truly voluntary, but rather a direct result of the threats made against them, their loved ones, or their property. Such actions may be considered voidable or invalid in the eyes of the law because genuine consent, which is fundamental to many legal transactions, was absent.

Here are some examples illustrating the application of "per minas":

• Example 1: Contractual Agreement

  A small business owner is approached by a larger competitor who demands they sell their company for a fraction of its true value. The competitor explicitly threatens to physically harm the owner's family if they refuse to sign the sales agreement. Fearing for their loved ones' safety, the owner signs the contract.

  Explanation: In this scenario, the business owner's agreement to sell was made per minas. Their consent was not freely given but was coerced by direct threats of violence against their family. A court would likely find this contract voidable due to the presence of duress, as the owner was not acting voluntarily.

• Example 2: Changing a Will

  An elderly individual, who is dependent on a caregiver for daily needs, is pressured by the caregiver to change their will to include a substantial inheritance for the caregiver. The caregiver threatens to abandon the individual and withhold essential medication if the will is not altered as requested.

  Explanation: The changes made to the will could be challenged as having been made per minas. The individual's decision to alter their will was not a free choice but was compelled by threats to their well-being and care. This lack of free will could lead to the will's contested provisions being invalidated.

• Example 3: Settlement in a Legal Dispute

  During a heated negotiation for a civil lawsuit settlement, one party's attorney threatens to reveal highly sensitive and potentially damaging personal information about the opposing party to the media, regardless of its truthfulness, unless they agree to a significantly unfavorable settlement amount. Fearing public humiliation and reputational damage, the opposing party reluctantly agrees to the settlement.

  Explanation: The agreement to the unfavorable settlement could be argued as having been made per minas. The party's consent was not based on a fair assessment of the legal merits but was coerced by threats of public exposure and reputational harm. If proven, this could be grounds to invalidate or renegotiate the settlement agreement.