A Contract Involving a Minor - Essay Example

? Question one: A contract involving a minor John is an under 18 child (minor). The law is usually very protective towards minors. The general rule is that a minor is not eligible to enter into binding contracts, unless they approve such contracts when they attain the age of the majority or if some other exceptions under this rule exists. Furthermore, the law recognizes that a child cannot comprehend the repercussions of a contract. However, a child is eligible to enforce such contracts, but the adult cannot enforce them, which means they are not void. Therefore, John will easily convince the court to invalidate the contract so he can be paid the $500 down payment he had paid to the car dealer. In other words, the car dealer cannot get away with this contract even though John is not capable of entering into binding contracts. However, John’s incapacity to enter into a binding contract is subject to four exceptions, which the car dealer can cite if they have enough prove. These include the following: i. Beneficial contracts such as employment ii. Contracts involving necessaries iii. Contracts involving company shares, land, marriage, and partnerships except if they are voidable iv. Contracts that are approved by a child after attaining the age of the majority. Among these exceptions, the dealer can only try to argue in line with the second one, though it will still be very hard to convince the court that the contract involved necessary goods. It is clear that John believed that a car is a necessity, which perhaps was due to the influence he got from Facebook and his friends. This fact can hardly make the contract binding on the child, because the law considers them incapable of making valid decisions on their own. Therefore, the court will argue that John could not be relied to decide, by himself, what is a necessity. On this ground, therefore, the car dealer is not likely to get any reprieve from the exceptions. Another provision of the law is that a contract involving a minor is voidable. This means that, prior to reaching the age of the majority; a child has the freedom to withdraw any contract. Even though John does not have any justifiable reasons to cancel the contract, the car dealer will still lose the case because the law allows minors to do so on a whim if it is advantageous for them to do so (Hugh 256). The reason why the car dealer was cautious on entering into a contract with a child was because he feared the consequences if the child breached the contract. His instinct was correct, however, he did a mistake when he at last accepted to sign the contract even after the child’s parent declined to co-sign the loan. All in all, if the parent had agreed to co-sign the loan; this could not have given him a complete reprieve. The best strategy was to ask the minor to let his parent sign the full loan on his behalf, since parents are not legally responsible on contracts entered by their children unless when they are acting as their agent.1 Therefore, John will win in his bid to get the contract invalidated by the court and recover the $500, down payment. Question two: a contract with an illegal purpose Smuggling is an illegal activity and it is against the interest of the public, therefore, any suit regarding this case will face many hurdles as the court does not condone participation in illegal activities. Smuggling is under a class of illegal contracts, which are unenforceable as they imposes no obligations and creates no rights on the parties who are involved. In an illegal contract, losses and gains remain where they have fallen because money and assets changing hands are not recoverable. The court’s idea is that illegal contracts are undesirable in the eyes of the public and hence, they do not disserve assistance considering they do not contribute towards well-being of individuals in the society.2 Therefore, the court will refuse to help the mechanic enforce their contract with Jack and will also not give any restitution of benefits. There are three policies that are invoked by the court when refusing to assist parties to illegal contracts, including the following: i. If the court helps such parties, its dignity will be offended and justice will be tainted ii. People should be discouraged from entering into illegal contracts iii. The parties who enter into illegal contracts knowingly should not be helped by the court Therefore, the mechanic will not succeed in his bid because the court will have to follow these policies. First, smuggling is an illegal business and if the court helps the mechanic recover his dues, the court’s dignity will be offended and justice will be tainted because it is not fair to assist someone who is helping another person do illegal business. Second, denying the mechanic the right to recover his money under an illegal contract will discourage him from entering into such a contract. Among the principle categories that the approach to enforceability of illegal contracts is divided, the contract between the mechanic and Jack can be put under “contracts which are not illegal per se, but further an illegal purpose.” (Hugh 243). This is because construction of a gas tank per se is not illegal, but the purpose which it is intended to be used is illegal. As such, this contract is neither enforceable by Jack who is entering into it with an illegal intention, nor the mechanic who is entering into it knowing that the tank will be used to assist in drug smuggling, which is an illegal intention. The fact that the mechanic had trapped Jack to signed a contract that he is not going to engage in illegal business will not be a valid defense because he knew right from the beginning that the tank was intended for an illegal purpose and, therefore, anything else that was done thereafter and in furtherance of the same contract should be deemed illegal.3 A good defense for the mechanic could have been that he was not aware of the illegal intention, but the fact that he was told by Jack and requested they sign a letter saying that he should not be engaged in illegal activity keeps invalidates such a defense. It is, therefore, most likely that the mechanic will not win this case. A contact between a father and son The agreement between John Harrington, Junior and John Harrington, Senior is a typical contract, complete with a valid consideration. By definition, consideration is the agreement aspect of a contract, which is also the price of the promise. However, the aspect of this contract, which could create the most important legal implication, is the fact that the parties were not intending to enter into a contract that would lead to legal relations and, therefore, the contract can hardly be enforceable in a court of law. This is because the contract involves father and son; hence it is a domestic agreement whereby it is presumed that the parties do not have intentions to create legal relations when making agreements. If it were not for the domestic relationship that existed between the two parties, then the contract could have been binding; though the health benefits attained by John junior should not have acted as a defense on the part of the defendant. This is because, even refraining from smoking, taking into account that it was done with the aim of getting some benefit from another party, is a disadvantage. Despite the fact that refraining from smoking has some health benefits, it took John junior endeavor and perseverance, which he would not have done were it not for the promised $ 5,000. This can be illustrated by Hamer v. Sidway case, whereby, it was found that restraint of legal privileges in return for promise of future advantages can form a valid consideration. In Hamer v. Sidway, Story II had given a valid consideration in form of forbearance, which was to be exchanged by Story I’s performance; hence he was legally liable to perform the promise.4 In view of this discussion, it has been assumed that John’s father had no intention to make his agreement, with his son, a legal relation; which means that breach of the contract cannot attract remedy in a court of law. A domestic relation is the origin of the absence of legal relations in this case. For illustration, in Balfour v Balfour [1919], a contract between a wife and husband, concerning compensation for the wife’s maintenance was considered as lacking legal relations and hence not binding. 5Similarly, despite existence of a consideration, the contract between John junior and his father is not interpreted as a legally contractual obligation. Furthermore, parties in a domestic agreement usually assume that their agreements are open to adjustments with time and depending on situations (Hugh 286). Furthermore; the court will consider that interfering into such a family affair, which did not originally have legal intention, could devastate their relationship and hence do more harm than benefit. Even if John junior had intended the agreement to be legally binding, there is no evidence that his father had such intentions and, therefore, the contract cannot be binding since both parties must make an outward intention.6 Nevertheless, John junior should not give up in getting his rightful share. He can seek a private arbitrator, to help convince his father to pay him the $ 5,000, which he had promised him. On an ethical ground, John senior has a moral obligation to pay his son the $ 5,000.The fact that discontinuing smoking benefited him health wise should not be an excuse, because this is unfair as the son will feel shortchanged. Furthermore, an ethical action should be based on the performance rather than the results. Works Cited Hugh, Collins. The Law of Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Read More