Explanation of Article 393
This article includes an exception to the ruling in the previous article (392), which established the validity of a settlement by the settler as long as they are competent to dispose of the rights included in the settlement contract. The ruling in that article implies that the settlement by a discerning minor authorized to engage in transactions is valid within the limits of what they are authorized to do. This article clarifies that the settlement by a discerning minor is valid within the limits of what they are authorized to dispose of in terms of rights, provided that the settlement does not cause them clear harm. If the settlement contract includes clear harm to them, it is void; for example, if another party disputes an asset in their possession and they settle for an amount significantly exceeding its value, the contract is void. Anyone with an interest can invoke its invalidity, and the court can rule on it on its own initiative, and the contract cannot be ratified. This article also constitutes an exception to the ruling in article (51), which states that the transactions of a discerning minor authorized within the limits of the authorization are equivalent to those of someone who has reached the age of majority. The reason for this exception is to protect the minor, as a settlement contract is typically made in the presence of an existing or potential dispute; this dispute may lead the minor to agree to a settlement even if it clearly harms them, out of fear of the consequences of the dispute.
Related To
Article 393
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 392(1) of this Law, if an authorized discerning minor is party to a reconciliation contract, such contract shall not be deemed valid if the reconciliation causes the minor material harm.