The Issue Of Texas Law Essay

"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."

Being famous can easily change a down to earth person. As a pop star, you are always surrounded by thousands of people who look up to you. That can put a lot of pressure on a person whether they want to be a role model or not. Having to always meet your fans standards can be hard I agree, but your standards shouldn’t be low where you are making a fool out of yourself in front of your millions of fans. I think these two popular pop stars are asking for a lot more trouble than they already are in and will receive worse consequences in the end. I also think adults have a strong point

* Minors are defined as individuals under the age of majority to contract. This is the age at which a person is entitled to the management of his/her own estate (18 in most states).

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

Attorney John Roska’s column in Saint Louis Post-dispatch answers questions to a similar situation, the article states that a minor can cancel a contract at anytime for any reason as long as the minor informs the other party about canceling the contract and returns the car. After the minor returns the car, the other party must return the money received for the car since the car has been returned (Roska, 2007).

We can link this to Rick as when he bought the laptop, he intended to give the laptop to his girlfriend which means that when the contract was formed and if he was under the age of 18, the contract wouldn’t be valid due to the fact that the laptop is not a necessity to him neither does it benefit him as he isn’t using the laptop. But because we are assuming that Rick is over the age of 18 it would not matter whether the laptop was a necessity or a benefit to him as he can form a valid contract.

The boundary between publicity rights and the First Amendment rights is the main legal issue being called into question in this case. There has been a struggle to clearly articulate where the line separating publicity and free speech lies. Arguments can be made on both sides and many famous cases have come about from this issue, most of them going in favor of the first amendment. There is a definite conflict between a celebrity’s right of publicity and the public’s right to free expression represented in the

Most people who follow a celebrity want to be just like them so it’s likely

Marshall Petersen created the contract, then asked my son to sign the contract. My son was only 17 years old when he signed the contract and did not have a position within the company that gave him the right to sign contracts. According to FindLaw.com (2016), to be obliged by a contract, a person must be legally able to develop a contract, or have the capacity to contract. Anyone under the age of 18 cannot develop an enforceable contract (FindLaw.com, 2016). A minor or their guardian may cancel a contract entered into by the minor. My son turned 18 last month, so we are still within the time period to cancel the contract he signed at the age of 17.

A new up and coming artist by the name of “Lil Pump” became an overnight sensation and went viral over all social media platforms with a hit song “Gucci Gang”. In the entertainment business, the more popularity you gain the greater asset (profit potential) you are to a record label. Warner Bros. Records saw exactly that with the artist Lil Pump and pursued. Lil Pump’s hit song peaked at number three on the Billboard hot 100 song chart with 280 million streams, while reaching top five on the Billboard chart, he was also given a $350,000 advance. Warner Bros, Records were sure that they had their next “meal ticket”, until they received a letter to void Lil Pump’s contract. A contract can be voided under the grounds: the signer is underage. In

Although most of the contracts are done verbally but there are some requirements of how should a contract be maintain valid in which the most important two are Firstly there should be acceptance of offer by both the parties and secondly there must be something in exchange like the goods, services or promise. Here, the question arises that does a contract needs to be written? Written agreement of the Contract is a wise decision to made, some of the state laws requires written agreement of contract for certain dealings. So outlining the legal issue for the case under the Australian common Law indicates that there was no intention to create legal intention. But there was an Offer and acceptance too in the case but looking at the rules of offers which states in the case (R v Clarke). It must be communicated to the offeree. There was no consideration either taken place between both the parties so that would make the contract more Appropriate. Its also not mentioned anywhere about the age of Nathan that means he can be a Minor too which means under 18, it can also make the contract go void. It can be an fraudulent misrepresentation as John knew that Nathan was not understanding his offer and may be John tried to Deceive him intentionally. A contract inducted by fraud is voidable at the action of the innocent party as it was in (Derry viper) (1889). Apart from the Contract Law there was also negligence involved in

Contractual Capacity is the legal ability to enter into a contract. Minors have particular rights and obligations established by the court when it comes to contracts. Once a person reaches age 18, they are considered a legal adult in every state in the nation. In addition to minors, other persons are able to avoid contracts. Mentally impaired and intoxicated people, convicts, and aliens lack the capacity to enter into a contract.

There are exceptions to the rule of entering a contract which includes minors, people with a mental illnesses, or who are under the influence of alcohol. These groups of people are seen as having no capacity, or incapacity. If any of these issues are present at the time they are entering in to the contract then it can then be seen as unenforceable or will be queried. Under the Family Law Reform Act 1969 a minor is seen as a person under the age of 18. The main statute which minors are governed by is the Minors’ Contract Act 1987. It states ‘a contract made by a minor is not void; and although the minor is not normally bound, the other party will be.’ Minors are seen as having limitations when entering in to contracts, and therefore there are some immunities to the rule. This includes necessaries and none necessaires, voidable contracts, or non-binding contracts which have been ratified. In terms of the necessaries, The Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that ‘goods suitable to the condition

One of elements of a valid contract is the contractual capacity which is the legal ability to enter into contracts. Minors who may have capacity enter into a valid contract, can also avoid liability arising out of it by virtue of being a minor for in law, they are not legally bound by contracts. In all the States of the U.S., all persons who are less than 18 years old are minors. However, this right to void a contract entered into by a minor can be terminated under certain situations. In some States, minority can be terminated on marriage. The minority can also be terminated by virtue of minor’s emancipation occurring when a minor’s parent or legal guardian relinquishes the legal right to control over the child. Minors who leave parental homes are considered emancipated (Miller, 2014). The right to avoid a contract by a minor entered into by him/her is known as the right of disaffirmation subject to certain exceptions. Although parents are not generally liable for contracts entered into by their minor children, they are liable if the contract was made for children’s necessaries which the parents are legally bound to provide. Thus, businesses require parents to co-sign the contract of the minor so that the parents are obligated to perform the contractual conditions even if the minor disaffirms the contract (Miller, 2014).

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.