Explanation of Article 392
The first paragraph clarified the capacity required for the conciliator, which is to be competent to dispose of what the settlement contract includes of disputed rights; this is because each of the conciliators waives part of their claim in exchange for the other waiving part of theirs. The established rules in the first section on the capacity of the contracting party apply to this; and the settlement by the guardian or custodian regarding any of the minor's rights requires that it be within the rights they are authorized to dispose of according to the system. The second paragraph clarified the ruling in the event that the settlement contract includes the waiver of some of the claimed rights without compensation from a financial right obtained by the conciliator. In this case, the conciliator who waives their right must have full capacity; thus, the settlement is not valid from a discerning minor, an insane person, a prodigal, or a negligent person if the settlement includes waiving their right without financial compensation. For example, if a dispute arises over a debt owed to the minor by another party, and the minor waives part of their debt on the condition that the other party pays the remaining amount in exchange for the minor waiving their claim to the full debt; this settlement includes the meaning of discharge, and thus is not valid from them.
Related To
Article 392
-
A party to a reconciliation contract must have the legal capacity to dispose of the rights provided in the contract for a consideration.
-
If reconciliation involves the relinquishment of any right for no consideration, the party relinquishing his right must be fully competent.