The 's Legal Capacity Of Children Statute Essay

786 Words4 Pages
It is likely that a court will find Caterers Unlimited did not contract with Kris Hamilton for items deemed as necessaries under Utah’s Legal Capacity of Children statute. The statute states “a minor is bound not only for reasonable value of necessaries but also by his contracts, unless he disaffirms them.” Utah Code Ann. § 15-2-2 (1953). The Utah court further explains this legislation in Harvey v. Hadfield, where the court specifically recognizes “the justice and propriety of refusing to enforce contracts against minors, except for necessities” and reaffirms that the purpose of the 15-2 statute is to protect minors from imprudent acts until they “have the maturity of judgment necessary to deal with opposing parties on equal terms so that it is fair and equitable to bind them by their acts.” Harvey v. Hadfield, 13 Utah 2d 258, 372 P.2d 985 (1962). Although the Utah courts have failed to explicitly define the term “necessaries,” authority from the Arizona Court of Appeals in the Valencia v. White case determined that necessaries constitute items such as food, clothing, housing, and other basic requirements to sustain life Valencia v. White, 134 Ariz. 139, 654 P.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1982). It should be noted that the Arizona court did not created a strict test to determine necessaries, instead choosing to determine each case on a “factual and reasonable basis.” In the Valencia case the minor entered into a contract crucial to the operation of his trucking company. At the
Get Access