Contrtactual Capacity of Minors

"In California, the elements for a viable contract are 1) parties capable of contracting; 2) their consent; 3) a lawful object; and 4) sufficient cause or consideration." In regards to a minor 's capacity to contract, a minor is capable of contracting unless specifically prohibited. However, Section 6710 of the California Family Code states that "except as otherwise provided by statute, a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards."

* A person who has not yet reached the age of majority is called a minor.

Contractual capacity is, “The legal capability to form a binding contract. A number of classes of people lack contractual capacity, and these include minors…” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2010). A minor’s capacity to contract and the lack of an employee’s capacity to bind a company by contract could be used in defense against a breach of contract.’ Consideration is necessary for any contract to exist. A promissory estoppel is used when consideration requirements are absent (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p.250).

In place are laws of binding contracts to protect ones such as the 12 year old.

I drafted the requirements and one particular day, I handed the supplier’s son the requirements contract and asked him to sign on behalf of the company, which he agreed to. However, the demand for the products skyrocketed nationwide after an article was written in the Huffington Post highlighting the antioxidant qualities of Muscadine; prompting the supplier to repudiate the contract by either increasing the prices of the products or referring me to other providers. At the time, the requirements contract was signed by the supplier’s son I was not aware that he a minor.

All of the case studies are concerned with the Law of Contract, specifically the formation of a contract and the differences between an invitation to treat and a contract. We will investigate each consumers’s specific contract or lack thereof individually and advise Bruce on his legal position.

Identify two (2) legal issues which may arise in an early childhood setting? What are some ways to respond to these to legal issues?

In the Valencia case the minor entered into a contract crucial to the operation of his trucking company. At the

The owner has possession of full faculties and is willing to enter into contracts with a clear understanding of all that is involved in the issuance and acceptance of said contract.

Any individual below the age of 18 can be termed as a child. However, any child above the age of 14 at the time of the crime can be tried as an adult. This age can even be lower and differs among states. For instance, the youngest ever recorded successful trial as an adult was of a 12-year-old (Alexford, 2015). Almost every such case starts in a juvenile court with a felony accusation. The court must direct hearings and make

717). However, later cases argue against the autonomy of minors, allowing the state to override minors and their parents (Woolley, 2005, p. 717). Minors are refused the right to make their own decisions based on the assumption that they are immature and therefore do not possess the decision-making capacities to make a rational choice (Chen, 2007, p. 645).

1. Competent parties. A court will not uphold a contract entered into by parties the law does not believe have the capacity to take on such a legal responsibility, such as minors or people who are mentally incapacitated.

Marshall received a signature on a contract from a seventeen year old minor in which he hopes to enforce. From a legal standpoint, minors have a limited ability to enter into contracts. The seventeen year old minor employee can void the contract he signed at any time. Minors have the option to do this because of laws made to protect them

Though once assumed to be simply miniature adults, children, any persons under the age of 16, no longer have full legal capacity. The limitations on legal capacity, however, serve to protect them from acting on less than adequate knowledge rather than to restrict them; therefore, children have sufficient legal capacity that any persons under 16 might ever need.

In term of effect of contracts made by minors, according to general rule in Malaysia: contracts made by infants are void. This can be referred to case of Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose (1903) 30 Cal 539, 30 1A 114.