then in that case the father has acted in the son’s interest, and the stipulated bridal gift is binding upon the son, even if it exceeds the customary bridal gift, because the father’s action was in the son’s interest; thus, it is a binding debt owed by the husband.

Second, their statement that, if he is insolvent, the father does not guarantee it: the correct view is that if the father has informed the wife, or her guardians, that his son is insolvent and that he is not acting as guarantor, then they entered into the arrangement with full awareness, and they have no claim. But if he did not inform them, then there is no doubt that he is liable as guarantor, for we know with certainty that, had the wife and her guardians known of the son’s insolvency, they would not have married her to him.

Accordingly, we say concerning the author’s unqualified statement, “the father does not guarantee it,” that it requires further consideration. The correct view is to distinguish: if he informed them, then he bears no liability; but if he did not inform them, then he is liable, because he misled them. The husband is the one from whom the bridal gift is to be claimed; if it is not possible to claim it from him, then it is to be claimed from the father. In all cases, ultimate liability rests with the father, though the initial claim is directed to the one who received the benefit.