For a contract to be valid and enforceable, the same contractual obligations exist whether the contracts are with adults or minors. One of the primary contract formation requirements is having “the legal ability to enter into a contract”, which is known as capacity to contract (Miller, 2012). The lack of contractual capacity can be invoked due to mental impairment, intoxication from drugs or alcohol and age. An individual who has yet to reach the “age of majority to contract” is considered a minor and does not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract (Adamson, 2012). Although Mississippi has the highest age of majority at 21, most states in the U.S. have set by statute the age of 18 as the legal transition to adulthood. Consequently, …show more content…
The term is most commonly used in the context of contracts entered by minors or individuals who lacked the capacity to enter into a legally binding agreement (Legal Information Institute, 2014). Most states allow the disaffirmance of a contract by individuals lacking capacity at any time prior to the age majority or a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority (miller, 2012). After a minor disaffirms a contact, the minor is typically required to return the received items. A case example of this principle is the 1980 Supreme Court of Wisconsin case Halbman v. Lemke. Halbman who was a minor at the time, contracted to purchase a car from Lemke, financing a portion of the debt. After the vehicle broke down five weeks later, Halbman had it repaired but never paid for or returned to pick up the vehicle. Halbman subsequently returned the title to Lemke and disaffirmed the contract. After neither Halbman nor Lemke paid the repair shop, the garage removed the repaired car parts and towed the car to Halbman’s residence where it was subsequently vandalized. Halbman sued Lemke for the amount he had already paid Lemke. Since Halbman returned the property in the form of the title and disaffirmed the contract, the court awarded Halbman damages (Halbman v. Lemke, 298 N.W.2d 562,
When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
The age of responsibility should not be an age such as 18, 16 or 21 because everybody is different and matures at different ages. One’s true responsibility should be when they are at an age where they are fully developed in the brain and mature enough to make their own decisions without an adult. It needs to be a time where they can handle the rights that they are given in adulthood and use them wisely and maturely. Young people have been relying on their parents for their whole lives and some when they leave the house cannot make the right
Critics might argue that seventeen year olds are too naive to sign their own medical consents. They believe that they are not “of age” and that eighteen is the perfect age to fabricate decisions on behalf of you officially becoming an adult. When in all actuality at the age of eighteen your brain is still technically not fully developed. Your brain is not fully developed until approximately the age of twenty-five.
In the eyes of the law an adult is legal at the age of 18.At 18 you can join the
In America, when a person turns eighteen, that person is now considered an adult and is treated like one as well. That person is entrusted with responsibilities such as voting, enlisting in the armed services, opening personal bank accounts and possibly holding public office. If a person can be entrusted with such responsibilities at that particular age, who can say that he/she is not ...
Lowering the drinking age to under 21 can cause young adults to be medically irresponsible. For example, young adults under 21 years old can violate properties or other valuable items that might cause them penalties because of underage drinking law. People at any age who has had alcohol and other drug problems often diagnosed with severe treatments and discrimination (Youth Facts). Youth Facts claims that people at any age have been determined with some type of treatment when they were overdosed with alcohol. In addition, drinking under the age of 21 can severely cause major health problems among themselves and to others.
The Legal Status of Sixteen and Seventeen Year Old Youth in Ontario. Toronto, Ont.: Canadian Foundation for Children Youth and the Law (Justice for Children & Youth), 1993. Print.
Therefore, Texas law provides that all seventeen-year-olds are automatically treated as adults in the justice system and excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, regardless of the circumstances in which the violation of state or local law occurred.
Barbara Kalas (plaintiff) owns a print shop and filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Edward W. Cook for a breach of duties in which Adelam Simmons was the buyer of the estate. Kalas had a very extensive verbal agreement with Simmons for the sale of items and after Simmons’s death Cook declined to pay for these items that were delivered to her.
If the elements of a contract did exist between these parties, there could still be some possible reasons why a contract might not be valid based on facts not present in the scenario. For example, if Sam was a minor at the time he made the agreement with the chain store, the contract would not be valid because of contractual capacity. Per the law a contract by minors is voidable by the minor itself. Other reasons that would deem a contract invalid are lack of genuine assent, which means that the accepting party entered the agreement under fraudulent circumstances, duress, undue influence and/or misrepresentation. Moreover the validity of the contract could be hindered due to lack of proper form. This typically refers to
S.6(3) states that as against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer liability for breach of the obligations arising from ss.13, 14 or 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 can be excluded or restricted by reference to a contract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
...e persons are vulnerable through dependency and deserve the protection of the state against the risks of abuse or exploitation. Hence, any agreements that were made are voidable, and a court may declare that person a ward of the state and grant power of attorney to an appointed legal guardian (in England and Wales, this is a specific function of the Court of Protection) source(www. Wikipedia.com) Drunkenness/drug abuse Section 3 of the sales of goods act 1979 provides that they are required to pay a reasonable price for necessaries in the same way as minors. Other kinds of contract are governed by common law. If a person is drunk at the time of making the contract, he will be able to avoid his liabilities if he can show that he did not understand what the agreement was about and the other person was aware of this. Source(business law Denis Keenan and Sarah Riches)
Minors: The Australian law restricts the entry of Minors in the formation of the contract. So any contract made with the person under the age of 18 will be considered as voidable contract. (Clarke, 2016)