Question

Letty is 17 years old. She just got her driver's license and is excited to buy her first car. She sees an ad on Craig's List for a 2010 Shelby GT500 for sale that peeks her interest. It is her favorite color, pink, in excellent condition with only 5,000 miles, and a convertible just like she wants. She calls the seller, Dominic, and tells him she wants to buy it. Dominic tells Letty the car is $30,000 and gives her his address so she can pick up the car and bring him the money. The next day Letty brings Dominic a check and drives the car home. Dominic was so excited about selling the car that before Letty arrived he decided to celebrate and drank 6 tequila shots and 3 beers. Dominic is quite a character, he loves to party and drinks almost every day. He's also somewhat of a daredevil and many of his friends describe him as fun but a little crazy. On his Facebook page he brags about how crazy he is. Three months later, Letty turns 18. She and her friends celebrate her birthday by going to a dance club. Prior to going out, Letty drank some cough syrup with codeine that her doctor had prescribed for her. On the way home from the club, Letty is involved in a car accident. Luckily no one is injured, but her car sustains $20,000 worth of damage. Letty calls Dominic and tells him that she doesn't want the car anymore and that he needs to return her money. Dominic says fine, and tells her to bring the car back. The next day Letty has the car towed back to Dominic's. Dominic sees the wrecked car and exclaims, "what happened?" Letty tells him about the accident and says "where's my money?" Dominic then tells her, "I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid! I'm not giving you a penny back, you destroyed it, it's yours, it's not my problem!"

Did Letty and Dominic have a contract for sale of the car?

Was there an offer, acceptance and consideration?

Did Letty and Dominic have the capacity to enter into the contract?

Can Letty sue Dominic and get her $30,000 back?

What if the accident was her fault, can she still get her money back?

What is the infancy doctrine and does it apply to this case?

Did Letty disaffirm or ratify the contract?

What defenses can Dominic raise for not returning her money?

Answer 1

• Letty and Dominic have a contract for the sale of the car
• There is an offer,acceptance and consideration.
• Dominic has legal capacity while Letty does not have legal capacity to enter into a contract
• Letty can not succeed in recovering the $30,000 from Dominic
• She can not get the money back even if the accident was her fault
• Letty disaffirms the contract

Explanation:

The infancy doctrine in contract law refers to the doctrine that minors' contracts are generally voidable. It protects persons under the legal age from crafty adults and their own bad judgement.It is made on the assumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract.

A minor is a person below the age of 18.Contracts by minors are generally voidable on the part of the minor.A minor can enter into a contract at law,however,such a contract is voidable by the minor before they reach the age of 18.This means the minor can enforce the contract but they can also terminate it if the wish to.Once they attain majority age,the contract becomes legally binding.

A voidable contract by the minor means it can be ended.The contract is still valid but can be avoided by the minor who can legally terminate the agreement before turning 18 years.

The law provides guarantees for minors contracting with adults.A contract is binding on the adult but not on the minor,however if the minor ratifies the contract after attaining 18 years he is legally bound.Further, a contract is not void while the person is still a minor and any money paid under the contract can not be repaid unless there has been no benefit received.

If a minor pays money under a contract,this can not usually be recovered unless it can be proved that the contract has not been beneficial to the minor.If a minor enjoys goods or services and then seeks to terminate the contract and recover money already paid, he can not be reimbursed.

In Pearce v Brain(1929) case, a minor who exchanges a motor cycle for a car but found it defective was unable to reverse the contract. The court decided that the contract must stand as he had used the car and therefore had enjoyed the benefit of it.

In Valentini v Canali(1889) case a minor was unable to recover payments made since he had received some benefits from the contract.Thus Letty can not Letty can not succeed in recovering the $30,000 from Dominic since she benefited from the use of the vehicle.

Disaffirmation refers to the right for one party to renounce a contract.The person must indicate that they will not be bound by the terms outlined in the contract. Letty disaffirms the contract.

Dominic can argue the defense that Letty benefited from the contract in that she used the vehicle and thus can not recover the money paid. Additionally, Dominic can argue that it would be double loss and unfair condition since the car is completely damaged and thus Letty will have undue benefit on enforcement of the contract.

References

Edge, R. G. (1966). Voidability of Minors' Contracts: A Feudal Doctrine in a Modern Economy. Ga. L. Rev., 1, 205.

Thomas, J. A. C. (1972). Minors and Contract: A Comparative Study. Acta Juridica, 151.

PLEASE HELP ME BY LIKING THIS ANSWER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LIKE!