LEGAL CAPACITY
Capacity means that a person is legally able to enter into a contract. There are several things that make a person legally able to do so including age and state of mind. However, certain individuals lack the capacity or legal ability to enter into contracts. The law defines who these people are and prevents other individuals and businesses from having valid contracts with those who are said to lack capacity. Those who lack the capacity to contract include minors (with limited exceptions) and individuals who are so mentally impaired that they cannot understand the terms of the contract.
Age of Maturity
For one, a person must be of age of maturity, and the law sees this as age 18 or older. Those individuals who are under the age of 18 are recognised as minors, no matter the case. However, the entire contract must be disaffirmed. However, there are times when a minor can enter into a contract. This is true if the contract is for housing, food or things necessary to sustain life. Valuable utility items may be considered necessaries but items of luxury are not considered as necessaries.
Therefore, a minor would still be liable to pay for such utility items. An example of this was in the case of Chapple v Cooper (1844), where a service was considered necessaries. Contracts
…show more content…
But some courts have held that if the person understood the contract terms and consequences before signing, being under the influence is not enough to void the contract. In the case of Gore v Gibson (1845), it was held that a contract made by a person so intoxicated as not to know the consequences of his act is not binding on him if his condition is known to the other party. However, that such a contract is not void but merely voidable, it was held in Matthews v Baxter (1873) that if the drunken party, upon coming to his sense, ratifies the contract, he is bound by
What is a model? “A model is a simplified representation of reality it does not constitute reality itself. Models purposely ignore certain aspects of reality and focus on selected and related sets of crucial factors” (Segal and Spaeth 2002). In this paper, I will be discussing the three models and which model explains how justices behave the best: the legal model, the attitudinal model, and the rational model. The legal model justices vote on their preference but when given the opportunity they would vote to overturn the precedent because it does not fit their personal opinions. The attitudinal model justices are provided with the best prediction on a given case to determine how to vote. The rational model is the last model that feeds off the other models. The justices for this model vote on their preferences and not on sides. I will describe how each model links into each other.
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
The Mental capacity Act 2005 is a very important piece of legislation, because it makes a real difference to the lives of people who may lack mental capacity. The act will empower patients to make their own decision; it will also protect people with lack capacity by providing them with a flexible framework that places individuals at the very heart of the decision-making process.it will make sure that the patients with lack of capacity participate as much as possible in any decisions made on their behalf, and that these are made in their best interests. It also allows people to plan ahead for a time in the future when they might lack the capacity, for any number of reasons, to make decisions for themselves. The Act covers a wide range of decisions and circumstances; the act is supported by the practical guidance, and the Code of Practice which provides information about how the act works in practice. (http://www.direct.gov.uk 2007)
In John Torpey’s article “Coming and Going: On the State Monopolization of legitimate Means of Movement” he points out that through the use of documents such as international passports, internal passports, and identifications card such as driver licenses, the state control movements. By constructing rules and regulations the states are able to monitor and regulate who come can come in and who can’t. However, Sadiq in his article addresses illegal immigrants in a way that Torpey, failed to mention in his article. Sadiq in in his article, “Documentary Citizenship” brings forth an argument that focuses on illegal immigrants and their visibility within a nation-state. Being illegal one does not have any legal documents which means, they are invisible to the state. Though, illegal immigrants can buy identification documents in the black market that can give them social, political, or economical rights that will give them visibility within the state. I agree with Sadiq, that in order to fit in and to have rights in society you need some sort of
Any act done or decision made on behalf of an individual deemed to lack the capacity (following a capacity assessment), must be done in their best interests, this can cover financial, health and social care decisions.
The age of responsibility should not be an age such as 18, 16 or 21 because everybody is different and matures at different ages. One’s true responsibility should be when they are at an age where they are fully developed in the brain and mature enough to make their own decisions without an adult. It needs to be a time where they can handle the rights that they are given in adulthood and use them wisely and maturely. Young people have been relying on their parents for their whole lives and some when they leave the house cannot make the right
The Legal Status of Sixteen and Seventeen Year Old Youth in Ontario. Toronto, Ont.: Canadian Foundation for Children Youth and the Law (Justice for Children & Youth), 1993. Print.
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
In contrary to its contemporary antagonist philosophical schools, who advocate the practices of humanness and the rightness and set ideal of the past, the Legalists, in their complete rejection of the traditional ethics, embraces the efficacy of political power and uphold a society of laws and punishments. As the old feudal states decayed and the smoke of endemic warfare suffused, the need for a more rational government that can afford greater centralized power so as to strengthen a state against its rival increased substantially among the Warring States. Such a rising urge necessitated the emergence of the Legalists and further predetermined the Legalists’ inherent nature – realistic, totalitarian and problem-solving – which, with the realization of its significance and duty in the stream of history, finds its hegemonic character as well.
The Mens Rea of a crime refers to the mental element or the state of
Despite it’s longevity, consideration is not without criticism. Lord Goff observed in White v Jones that: ‘our law of contract is widely seen as deficient in the sense that it is perceived to be hampered by the presence of an unnecessary doctrine of consideration’. Abolition has been urged. Since the publication of the Law Revision Committee’s report in 1937, la...
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
Sam was 17 at the time of which means he was considered to be a minor as he was under 18. Laws relating to contracts with minors are designed to protect minors from entering into unfavourable contracts. In Sam’s situation though it can be considered that if a contract has been formed it’s a beneficial service contract in relation to a minor. This involves contracts for training, education, apprenticeships, or employment of which are binding on minors as it’s for their benefit. An example of this can be seen in the case of Doyle V White City Stadium (1935) where the agreement was binding on the minor as it was for his benefit
Mental Disorder: This states that the mind of the person involved in the contract should be stable at the time of making of the contract. The person must have enough understanding that he can make decisions otherwise the contract will be null and void.
Legal realism defines legal rights and duties as whatever the court says they are. Out of all the legal theories we have examined in class, I personally believe that this is the one that best exemplifies the purpose of law and would best suit and benefit society. The Dimensions of Law textbook defines legal realism as “the school of legal philosophy that examines law in a realistic rather than theoretical fashion; the belief that law is determined by what actually happens in court as judges interpret and apply law.”