[GAIUS libro primo ad edictum prouinciale. ] §2.14.28.prContra iuris ciuilis regulas pacta conuenta rata non habentur: ueluti si pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate pactus sit ne a debitore suo peteret, aut ne intra certum tempus ueluti quinquennium peteret: nam nec solui ei sine tutoris auctoritate potest.
[GAIUS, On the Provincial Edict, book 1]\n\nAgreements contrary to the rules of the civil law are not held valid; as for example, if a ward, without the authority of his tutor, has agreed not to demand from his debtor, or not to demand within a certain time, such as five years; for indeed payment cannot be made to him without the authority of his tutor.
ex diuerso autem si pupillus paciscatur, ne quod debeat a se peteretur, ratum habetur pactum conuentum: quia meliorem condicionem suam facere ei etiam sine tutoris auctoritate concessum est. §2.14.28.1Si curator furiosi aut prodigi pactus sit, ne a furioso aut prodigo peteretur, longe utile est curatoris recipi pactiones: sed non contra. §2.14.28.2Si filius aut seruus pactus sit, ne ipse peteret, inutile est pactum.
On the other hand, if a ward agrees that what he owes should not be demanded from him, the agreement is held valid; because he is permitted to make his condition better, even without the authority of his tutor.\n\nIf the curator of an insane person or a prodigal has agreed that demand should not be made from the insane person or the prodigal, it is highly useful that the agreements of the curator be accepted; but not the reverse.\n\nIf a son or a slave has agreed not to demand himself, the agreement is invalid.
si uero in rem pacti sunt, id est ne ea pecunia peteretur, ita pactio eorum rata habenda erit aduersus patrem dominumue, si liberam peculii administrationem habeant et ea res, de qua pacti sint, peculiaris sit.
But if they have agreed in rem, that is, that the money should not be demanded, their agreement will have to be held valid against the father or master in this way, if they have the free administration of their peculium and the matter about which they agreed is part of the peculium.
quod et ipsum non est expeditum: nam cum uerum est, quod Iuliano placet, etiamsi maxime quis administrationem peculii habeat concessam, donandi ius eum non habere: sequitur ut, si donandi causa de non petenda pecunia pactus sit, non debeat ratum haberi pactum conuentum.
Which itself is also not without difficulty; for since it is true, as pleases Julian, that even if someone has been granted the administration of his peculium to the highest degree, he does not have the right of making a donation, it follows that if he made an agreement not to demand money for the purpose of making a donation, the agreement ought not to be held valid.
quod si pro eo ut ita pacisceretur aliquid, in quo non minus uel etiam amplius esset, consecutus fuerit, rata habenda est pactio.
But if, in return for making such an agreement, he has obtained something in which there was not less or even more, the agreement must be held valid.