Extract
[...] Thus, Article 468, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code provides that the curator's assistance is required to bring an action in court or to defend oneself in it. Regarding the appeal directed against an act accomplished during the 'suspicious period': In the event of an act accomplished less than two years before the publication of the judgment opening a protective measure, Article 464 of the code provides for the possibility of challenging the act when it is proven that due to an alteration of his personal faculties, its author was unable to defend his interests. [...]
[...] In the second case, the action leads to the annihilation of the act and the restitution of the things given, but this nullity is subject to Article 464 to the proof that the act causes harm to the protected person. Solution: Mr. Gentil having been designated as curator of his mother, he will not be able to act in nullity unless his mother wishes it. She will then be assisted by her son to introduce the action. But he can also ask for the opening of a guardianship measure so that he can act on behalf of and in the interest of his mother. [...]
[...] This authorization, which may take the form of a private deed or a notarized deed, can only relate to administrative acts, to the exclusion of acts of disposition, so that the minor child duly authorized by his parents may, within the framework of his business, carry out the current management acts while the most serious acts, those which affect the substance of his assets, can only be carried out by his legal representative(s). Solution: As a minor under 16 years old, Frédéric is subject to a general incapacity to act under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. In addition, the creation and management of a company by a minor alone do not correspond to usual acts due to the patrimonial risks they present. Carried out by the unemancipated minor alone, these acts are annullable by application of Article 1147 of the Civil Code. [...]
[...] On the action for nullity due to insanity of mind: Article 414-1 of the Civil Code states that 'to make a valid act, one must be of sound mind' and that 'it is up to those who act in nullity for this reason to prove the existence of a mental disorder at the time of the act.' Insanity of mind corresponds to the serious mental disorder of the author of an act. Regardless of the origin of the disorder (Civ. 1ère nov n° 74-12097) the interested party must have been unable to understand the meaning and scope of the act. Furthermore, the plaintiff in nullity must provide proof that this insanity of mind existed at the time when the act was concluded, the jurisprudence admitting that this will be the case if the insanity of mind is established before and after the act. [...]
[...] However, the capacity to exercise of the minor child appears in three hypotheses: 1°) by way of exception to the principle of his representation, he can alone carry out the current acts concluded under normal conditions (C. civ., art. 1148). We speak of "usual" capacity (C. civ., art. 388-1-1), the usual act being definable as the act usually practiced by minors of the same age group, which does not present any particular danger to their person or their property;" 2°) when he is emancipated, the minor aged 16 is, under Article 413-6 of the Civil Code, "able, like a major, to perform all acts of civil life". [...]
