The idea is that they are not completely able to comprehend what they are getting themselves into. In England, a minor is legally bound to a contract he can be shown to have fully understood. They are dealt with in a case by case basis in a way that a sharp fourteen year old may be responsible but a daft sixteen year old may not be.
Sometimes, a minor may be more involved in a contract related to them, thus meaning they may actually understand the contract better than a parent or adult may understand it. A 16-year old, for example, is allowed to work for pay in a job, meaning he is trusted to do many important tasks throughout a day. If a contract relates to his work, he would probably be trusted more to understand it than a parent would.
What exceptions would you propose to a minor's right to disafirm a contract? Tiffany mentions that a minor might be legally bound to a contract if she "fully understood" the contract.
While it may be unduly burdensome to the courts to shift to a case by case basis, I definitely believe that instead of one all encompassing age of maturity, if a contract is understood by a minor, it should be enforceable. If our children are not expected to act or think like an adults, how do we automatically pull the rug out from under them on their 18th birthday?
One exception would be when a minor enters into a contract without actually planning to ever start or fully complete the contract. Although they may fully understand it, they may not actually think that it is enforceable for them to entirely complete it.
How can we determine whether a minor actually understood a contract? Should understanding the contract be the test as to whether the minor can disafirm?
Anthony- Good Point. How would a Court determine whether a minor never intended to fulfill her obligations under a contract? Are you referring to fraud?
Understanding should definitely be key in whether a contract with a minor is enforceable; yet, there are other components. Is the contract "bad contract" altogether where the other party is clearly receiving disproportionate benefits, even if the child understood it?
Fraud is definitely one of the main exceptions that this would relate to. Sometimes, a contract may have so much fraud that it is impossible for many adults to effectively complete, much less for a minor to complete on their own. If it is believed that an adult in society would not be able to fulfill a contract, then we should be able to believe that a minor never intended to fulfill their obligation in this type of contract. Also, if a minor does not have the requirements necessary to fulfill a contract, such as a certain amount of money, then the contract should not be expected to be finished.
There are huge questions that are involved in this issue, such as what is the role of a parent? Should parental consent be required in a contract with a minor? Should a parent be allowed to enter into a contract on behalf of a minor, against his or her will, if the minor is, for example, sixteen, and can be proven fully capable of consenting or rejecting a contract on her own.
Assuming a minor actually understood a contract, however the contract was grossly unfair to the minor, should we still allow the minor to right to disafirm?
I believe that it is crucial for a minor to fully understand beyond all doubt every aspect of the contract and what he was getting himself into. This seems to be the only logical reason as to why minors can disaffirm because they don't quite understand the legal issues they are involving themselves in. Just by simply asking them what they thought each part of the contract meant would help to test which minors fully understood what they were getting themselves into. I feel as though this should be part of a trial --> for the judge to "test" them on their understanding of the contract.
Referring to Tiffany's question regarding why we "pull out the rug" from children when they turn 18, I believe that there must be a specific point in time in which we draw the line. If the line becomes blurry then the laws will only become more complicated. I believe that drawing a line at the moment someone turns 18 is a necessary "evil".
I feel that a minor should definitely have the right to disafirm a contract, especially if it was grossly unfair to the minor. Our society should be built to help children, not exploit them.
The idea is that they are not completely able to comprehend what they are getting themselves into. In England, a minor is legally bound to a contract he can be shown to have fully understood. They are dealt with in a case by case basis in a way that a sharp fourteen year old may be responsible but a daft sixteen year old may not be.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, a minor may be more involved in a contract related to them, thus meaning they may actually understand the contract better than a parent or adult may understand it. A 16-year old, for example, is allowed to work for pay in a job, meaning he is trusted to do many important tasks throughout a day. If a contract relates to his work, he would probably be trusted more to understand it than a parent would.
ReplyDeleteWhat exceptions would you propose to a minor's right to disafirm a contract? Tiffany mentions that a minor might be legally bound to a contract if she "fully understood" the contract.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may be unduly burdensome to the courts to shift to a case by case basis, I definitely believe that instead of one all encompassing age of maturity, if a contract is understood by a minor, it should be enforceable. If our children are not expected to act or think like an adults, how do we automatically pull the rug out from under them on their 18th birthday?
ReplyDeleteOne exception would be when a minor enters into a contract without actually planning to ever start or fully complete the contract. Although they may fully understand it, they may not actually think that it is enforceable for them to entirely complete it.
ReplyDeleteHow can we determine whether a minor actually understood a contract? Should understanding the contract be the test as to whether the minor can disafirm?
ReplyDeleteAnthony- Good Point. How would a Court determine whether a minor never intended to fulfill her obligations under a contract? Are you referring to fraud?
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding should definitely be key in whether a contract with a minor is enforceable; yet, there are other components. Is the contract "bad contract" altogether where the other party is clearly receiving disproportionate benefits, even if the child understood it?
ReplyDeleteFraud is definitely one of the main exceptions that this would relate to. Sometimes, a contract may have so much fraud that it is impossible for many adults to effectively complete, much less for a minor to complete on their own. If it is believed that an adult in society would not be able to fulfill a contract, then we should be able to believe that a minor never intended to fulfill their obligation in this type of contract. Also, if a minor does not have the requirements necessary to fulfill a contract, such as a certain amount of money, then the contract should not be expected to be finished.
ReplyDeleteThere are huge questions that are involved in this issue, such as what is the role of a parent? Should parental consent be required in a contract with a minor? Should a parent be allowed to enter into a contract on behalf of a minor, against his or her will, if the minor is, for example, sixteen, and can be proven fully capable of consenting or rejecting a contract on her own.
ReplyDeleteAssuming a minor actually understood a contract, however the contract was grossly unfair to the minor, should we still allow the minor to right to disafirm?
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is crucial for a minor to fully understand beyond all doubt every aspect of the contract and what he was getting himself into. This seems to be the only logical reason as to why minors can disaffirm because they don't quite understand the legal issues they are involving themselves in. Just by simply asking them what they thought each part of the contract meant would help to test which minors fully understood what they were getting themselves into. I feel as though this should be part of a trial --> for the judge to "test" them on their understanding of the contract.
ReplyDeleteReferring to Tiffany's question regarding why we "pull out the rug" from children when they turn 18, I believe that there must be a specific point in time in which we draw the line. If the line becomes blurry then the laws will only become more complicated. I believe that drawing a line at the moment someone turns 18 is a necessary "evil".
ReplyDeleteI feel that a minor should definitely have the right to disafirm a contract, especially if it was grossly unfair to the minor. Our society should be built to help children, not exploit them.
ReplyDelete