Question

Ted, a 17-year-old high school student, was hired to perform in four episodes of a TV series filmed in Vancouver. To keep up with his schoolwork, he contracted with Mr. Tech, of Technoland, for a $3000 laptop computer. He agreed to pay $500 as a down payment and the balance in monthly payments of $250. Read each of the following separately and indicate which is true.

A) If Ted doesn't make his payments, Tech can sue Ted's parents, because parents are liable for the debts of their minor children.
B) If this contract is in writing and Ted doesn't make his payments, Tech can sue Ted for breach of contract.
C) This contract is a legal contract enforceable against Ted.
D) This contract is a legal contract enforceable by Ted.
E) This contract is void; therefore, Tech can repossess the laptop, which is technically still his whether or not Ted makes the payments.

Answer 1

Out of the options given, Tech can potentially sue Ted for breach of contract if it's in writing and Ted fails to pay. Parents are not automatically liable for their children's contracts and the contract with a minor is generally voidable at the discretion of the minor. The contract could be enforceable by Ted, but not necessarily void, meaning Tech's right to repossess the computer isn't absolute.

Step-by-step explanation:

The scenario presents a contract issue, generally governed by provincial or state law, alongside principles of contract law that are common in many jurisdictions. Among the options provided, B) Tech can sue Ted for breach of contract if the contract is in writing and Ted fails to make the payments. This is because minors can enter into contracts; however, such contracts are typically voidable at the discretion of the minor. On the other hand, the parents' liability for a minor's contract is limited - they are not automatically liable for Ted's debts unless they have co-signed or guaranteed the contract, so A) is generally false. Therefore, option C) could be true if local laws deem certain contracts with minors to be enforceable, especially for necessities, which a laptop may or may not be. Option D) suggests that the contract is enforceable by Ted, which is usually the case, given that minors retain the right to enforce contracts they enter into. Lastly, option E) about the contract being void and Tech's right to repossess the laptop assumes the contract is not valid at all, when in fact it may be voidable at the discretion of the minor, making this statement not entirely accurate.