Contract-Capacity and Legality Tommy Mccartney, Case Study

Some of the contracts which minors can't disaffirm include education loan contracts, insurance (health and life) contracts, armed forces enlistment contracts etc. Further, in some states, if a minor who seems (in terms of appearance) to be of majority age misrepresents his age at the time of entering into a contract with a competent party, such a minor is treated as an individual who has attained the majority age and in such a case, the minor may not be able to disaffirm the contract. In most cases, when a minor enters into a contract whereby he or she is provided with a necessity by a competent party, his or her right to disaffirm such a contract becomes limited. Though the minor may still disaffirm such a contract (technically speaking), he or she still remains liable for a significant value of the consideration. This exception is designed to ensure that minors are still able to access necessities such as food, shelter and clothing when their parents or guardians fail to provide for the same. However, it sometimes becomes difficult for courts to determine whether a specific consideration is a necessity or not.

Analysis

Based on the fact that Tommy is a minor, the contract between him and the competent seller is voidable. This effectively means that Tommy has the option of disaffirming any contract to which he is party to until a specified time after he attains the majority age. In this case, Tommy has already demonstrated an intention to disaffirm the contract by handing over the keys of the automobile to the seller and asking for a refund of whet he paid at the time of the purchase. If state laws allow the return of the consideration regardless of its condition without any requirement for restoration, then Tommy is entitled to a full refund of $6,000. However, where the laws of the state dictate that restoration be done if the consideration has lost significant value; Tommy will be entitled to the difference of what he paid for the automobile and the value of the automobile at the time of its return.

It should also be noted that Tommy's disaffirmation rights could be limited based on some technicalities. For instance, should it be established that Tommy misrepresented his age when he was making the purchase; his resolve to seek a refund could hit a snag. However, for this argument to prevail, the seller should prove that at the time of the actual purchase, Tommy's appearance was akin to that of an adult. Again, this is largely dependent on the specific laws of the state.

In my opinion, though the minor's right to disaffirm a contract he is subject to is tailored to protect such a minor from being taken advantage of by an individual of a majority age, it does expose a competent party to unethical minors who could be knowledgeable of their actions. For instance, in this case, the seller of the automobile would be clearly disadvantaged given that the vehicle was returned in a worse condition than it was at the time of purchase. In this case, a fair remedy would be restitution.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis above; while it is legal for Tommy to escape his obligations in regard to the contract, is not ethical for him to escape the same. From a legal perspective, the contract between Tommy and the competent seller is voidable and hence Tommy is entitled to a full refund of the $6,000 paid to the seller at the time of the purchase. However, this is dependent on the specific legal provisions…