Case IX: A Minor’s Obligation to Restore

Henry, a young man, with a reputation of being wild and a poor Catholic, confesses that once, when a minor and under 21 years of age, he borrowed a dollar from a saloon-keeper and also contracted a debt of ten dollars for liquor with the same man. Later on the saloon-keeper had Henry arrested for causing a disturbance in his saloon, and was so active in prosecuting the case that Henry was sent to jail for a month. Henry has not paid the debt he owes the saloon-keeper and refuses to pay it, as he thinks the saloon-keeper has already injured him more than the equivalent of what he owes. The saloon-keeper has consulted a lawyer about collecting the debt, and was told that he could not, as Henry was a minor. Moreover, Henry says that, if he were compelled to pay the debt, he could prosecute the saloon-keeper for selling liquor to a minor. The confessor thought that Henry was bound to pay the debt, but, fearing to drive him away from the Sacraments altogether, he absolved him. Was Henry bound in conscience to pay this debt?

Answer.—Generally, all persons may bind themselves by contracts, unless incapacitated either by nature or by law. Now, the civil law declares that the contract of an infant, if not for necessaries, is voidable, but not void. An infant, in law, is a person under 21 years of age. An infant may disavow his contract and so annul it, either before his majority or within a reasonable time after it. In the case before us, Henry, being a minor at the time he contracted the debt for liquor, is not bound by the civil law to pay it. Neither are his parents or guardians bound to pay it, since it was not a debt for the necessaries of life. Now, the question arises, does the civil law discharge Henry's conscience from paying this debt, or only his person. In other words, although the civil law denies the saloonkeeper an action against Henry in the courts to recover this debt, is Henry, nevertheless, bound in conscience to pay it? He is not bound in law; is he bound in equity? The civil code, in thus protecting the minor, confers a twofold privilege on him: "First, it declares the contracts of minors voidable, unless very special formalities of law are complied with. Secondly, if the minor rescinds the contract, he is not bound to make restitution for any damage the other party to the contract sustains, unless he still have in his possession the other party's property or its equivalent. If, now, we suppose that Henry obtained the ten-dollar's worth of liquor that he got from the saloon-keeper without fraud, that is, without representing himself as over 21 years of age, then he is not bound in conscience to pay for it, since the liquor was ad usus inutiles et prodigos, and the law voids such contracts and annuls any obligation of the minor party to them to make restitution. In fact, the minor's conscience is discharged from all obligation of restitution, even though the minor, before obtaining credit, had to promise, or did of his own free will promise, to waive his rights under the law and not to take advantage of the statute. If a minor, without consent of his father, buys anything, he cannot be forced to accept it or to pay for it. If he has accepted the goods purchased and paid for them, he may return them to the vendor and must be given back his money. If he has consumed or lost the thing purchased before paying for it, he can not be held in conscience for the purchase price. If a minor, without the consent of his father or guardian, borrows money and uses it for foolish purposes, he is not obliged to make restitution, even though, after reaching his majority, he be well able to do so. This is, of course, provided no deception has been practised by the minor in obtaining the money. But if the money has been used for necessary or useful purposes, then the minor is obliged to pay, because in that case he has really derived a benefit from the money, and is in so far better off than he was before, and from such an obligation it is not the purpose of the law to release him. The purpose of the law is to protect the young, who have as yet an imperfect knowledge of the value of things and the obligation of contracts, from the snares of the designing, and the wiles of dishonest and deceitful men. If such men take advantage of the youth, and thoughtlessness, and inexperience of minors for their own profit, they do so at their own risk, and it is well that they should suffer, for the protection of the weak and ignorant. The damage that they suffer must be charged to themselves.

This is the general teaching of the theologians. Thus, for instance, Father Lehmkuhl I. 1253, says:

"The more difficult question is whether he is bound to pay a debt contracted through drinking bouts or other prodigal acts, or from money accepted as a loan for such evil and prodigal uses, if another person—for example, an innkeeper—knowingly furnished these things to a minor so that he might indulge his inclination, when positive law denies the creditor the right to demand the debt; in other words, whether such a law can be understood so that, as a penalty for unlawful cooperation, the creditor’s right is wholly extinguished, or only so that a judicial action is denied.

Roman law actually so provides concerning money accepted as a loan. Therefore, if it was spent for useful ends, or even for those recreations for which, considering his condition, the youth’s father would have given money, it must indeed be repaid; but if it was exhausted in excessive and useless pursuits, and the minor neither acted fraudulently nor was, or seemed to be, in control of his own rights in the excepted cases, then, according to the opinion of many, not even afterward, when he has become of age, must it be repaid in conscience. Thus Lessius, concerning justice and law, book 2, chapter 20, number 8 and following; Laymann, book 3, treatise 4, part 3, chapter 15; Molina, and others; Reuter, III, number 151, at the end. This is from Roman law. Nor do more recent laws seem to contradict it, since they deny that minor children can contract firmly without the consent of a guardian."

Conclusion.—Henry is not obliged in conscience to settle for this ten-dollar liquor bill, neither now nor at any future time, whether he be able to do so or not. This should be explained to him, to remove any doubts that might lurk in his conscience. As for the one dollar that he borrowed from the saloon-keeper, that also he is not obliged to return, if he used it for liquor or gambling, etc. If he used it for a good or useful purpose, he must return it. However, as it was a materia levis, it need cause no anxiety.