Case Study Of Minors In Contract Law

767 Words2 Pages

A contract is a written or a verbal agreement, which is intended to be enforceable by law. It is particularly related to employment, sales, and real estate. In order to form a legally binding contract the requirements of a contract must be present. There must have been an offer, acceptance and an intention to form a legally binding contract. Without all of these elements a contract will not be legally binding. If all these requirements are in place a contract will be legally binding. However, the law states that certain people do not have the power to enter into a contract, as is the case with Nancy. A contract entered into by a minor is voidable. This means that a minor is able to cancel any contract at any time prior to reaching the …show more content…

The first right granted to minors in contract law cases is the right to disaffirm. For disaffirming to occur, a minor must either verbally state or show by action they are no longer interested in continuing with the binding the terms of the contract. Upon reaching the age of majority, the minor may choose to disaffirm the contract they were entered. If they do not disaffirm the contract within a reasonable period of time, they are considered to have ratified the contract. Nancy attempted to disaffirm the contract with Donna on October 15th by telling Donna she could not afford the payments, insurance and gasoline. The key to the disaffirming is the timing of Nancy’s request. On April 15th, Nancy turned the majority age of 18 and continued acting towards the contract as though she intended to be bound by it. She did not disaffirm before turning 18 or within a reasonable period of time after turning 18, therefore, the contract has been deemed ratified and the contract cannot be avoided. Nancy will be bound to pay Donna $1,800 on November 1, …show more content…

Does that make the covenant not to compete unenforceable? Many feel that the employer is terminating the employee and saying they are worthless and therefore how could the employee working for a competitor be a risk. Also, does it allow David to “have his cake and eat it too”? Another factor to consider when deciding if the convent not to compete is enforceable would be the 3 year time period that Barbara would not be able to seek employment in NY, NJ or PA. 3 years is a long time that would impact Barbara’s ability to make a living. Barbara could use either defense, if not both, to sue David for

Open Document