Question

We learned in Chapter 14 that minors have a unique power in contract law: the ability to disaffirm a contract entered into with an adult. Rather than disaffirming the contract either as a minor or within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, a minor could elect to ratify the contract upon reaching the age of majority. This means that if a minor enters into a beneficial contract, they can elect to ratify that contract as soon as they turn 18. On the other hand, if the contract turns out to be a bad deal, the minor can simply disaffirm. This one-sided power to void an otherwise properly-executed contract can result in harsh outcomes for adults who enter into contracts with minors.

Why do you suppose the common law developed this approach to contracts with minors? Do you believe that the approach still makes sense today? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Common law provides minors the power to disaffirm contracts to protect their lack of experience, the aim being to prevent exploitation by adults. Minors may ratify a contract upon reaching adulthood if it is beneficial to them. The approach remains relevant today to safeguard minors' interests in a society that values contractual rights and property rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

The common law developed the approach that minors have the ability to disaffirm contracts to protect minors from their own lack of experience and from being taken advantage of by adults who may seek to engage in unfair dealings. Given that minors may not have the capacity to fully understand the consequences of their actions, this legal stance provides a safeguard, ensuring they are not unjustly bound to contractual agreements that could have significant negative implications on their lives. However, if the contract is beneficial, they have the option to ratify the contract upon reaching the age of majority.

The question of whether this approach still makes sense today is complex. While some argue that many minors are more sophisticated now than in the past, and therefore should be held accountable for their contracts, others maintain that the protective nature of the law is essential due to the inherent vulnerability of minors. Furthermore, the definition of adulthood and the corresponding legal responsibilities fluctuate; for instance, in the United States, one can join the military and vote at 18 but cannot purchase alcohol until 21.

Adulthood and aging are recognized at different stages for different activities, and contractual rights are tied closely to the idea of adulthood and the assumption of legal responsibilities. Therefore, the current approach affords a layer of protection in a society that values strong contractual rights and property rights, ensuring minors are not exploited through contractual agreements that they may not fully comprehend.