In a reduction of a note granted for the price of goods, upon the head of minority, &c. there is no necessity to prove the identity, when the goods are offered back.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Pronsie, when a minor, bought a gold watch from Lady Kinminity, for which he granted his note to her for L. 25 Sterling. In a reduction thereof, upon the head of minority and lesion, it was alleged he had been greatly imposed upon in the bargain, as the watch was not worth above one third of the price; and although the pursuer would not have been bound to have restored it, in case he had given the same away for nothing, or been liable in the price, if he had sold it, and squandered the money; yet, as he happened to be still possessed thereof, he offered it back to the defender.
Answered for Lady kinminity; It is not every transaction of a minor's that is liable to reduction, enorm lesion must always be joined; e. g. If he buys cloaths from a merchant, suitale to his rank and quality, he cannot reduce the obligation given for the price, on pretence that he could have got cloaths cheaper elsewhere. Now, considering the pursuer's rank and opulency, it was no extraordinary thing for him to wear a gold watch; more especially, as it is admitted, That at the time of the purchase, he had in view to make a present thereof to a young lady whom he was about to marry. And as to the value, it cost the defender the same money she sold it for; which is the more probable, as the common rate of these things are from L. 20 to L. 25 Sterling. Besides, there is no evidence that the watch now offered is the same specific one delivered to the pursuer.
Replied for Pronsie; It is contrary to the rules either of law or equity, to load him with a proof that the watch is the same he bought from the defender; because such a proof would be inexplicable, seeing those who allow themselves the liberty of dealing with minors, seldom or never call witnesses to their bargains. Neither does the comparison, from a minor's purchasing cloaths of a merchant, apply to the present question; for, if a merchant should fraudulently induce a minor to pay 30 shillings per yard for cloth not worth 15 shillings, there can be no doubt that he would be entitled to set aside the bargain on the same grounds that this transaction ought to be reduced.
The Lords, in respect the watch was produced, found no necessity that the pursuer prove the identity thereof.
