Disaffirmance of contract - Essay Example

Disaffirmance is the act whereby a person is allowed to renounce a contract that he or she entered in void of legal requirements coming from the contract. It is meant to guard the minors from unfair contracts, although it has its drawbacks. Therefore, to void a contract, an individual must show that he or she will not be ready or willing to be bound by the signed contract. For instance, in this case, Mathew Green was a minor therefore liable to disaffirmance of the contract he made with Caruana Chevrolet.

The conduct of Mathew Green clearly indicated the he was about to disaffirm the contract since he knew a contract can be disaffirmed at any time as long as he is a minor or until he reaches eighteen. The Caruana Chevrolet had the right to deny repayment of the money that Mathew Green had paid them because when a person below the age of eighteen disaffirms a contract, the property that he or she has transferred can be retained or recovered to the third party, which is the Green family. It is significant to note that the law gives the minor the choice of disaffirming the obligations of the contract while the adult parties involved in the contract remain bound by it until the minor decides to disaffirm the contract, they cannot do it. . The Caruana Chevrolet did not consider these issues while entering into the contract with Mathew Green because they believed that the relationship that existed between Caruana Chevrolet and the Green family could make Mathew Green not disaffirm the contract.

There are some important exceptions in the disaffirmance contract in that a person under the age of eighteen is liable for the rational value of provisions of the contract. For instance, When Matthew did not have the car; he used a car pool to get to school and to work. Matthew’s father occasionally drove the car in a carpool with other parents and students. Several months later, the used car, which Matthew purchased, became inoperable due to a blown head gasket and Matthew Green gave notice of his disaffirmance of the contact to Caruana Chevrolet.

Therefore, if Mathew Green is given $7,000 as the sale price of the camaro, the court may be required to amend the amount if the reasonable amount for the car is less. In this case, the Caruana Chevrolet should refund Mathew Green because the law allows a minor who disaffirms a contract to have his or her demands considered even if the content of the contract is destroyed by the minor. On the other hand, Mathew Green will have to pay some amount to Caruana Chevrolet for the use of their property.

In this case, Matthew Green lived about six miles from his school and about one mile from his job and used the Camaro to go back and forth to school and to work. Therefore, he has to pay some money for reasonable value use of the camaro. The law demands that when a minor wants to disaffirm the contract, it should not be done abruptly but on time and in its entirety. In this case, Mathew Green gave notice of his disaffirmance of