Chapter 14 – Capacity to Contract
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES:
1. Yes. The issue is whether the medical care provided to Williams was a necessary. Normally,
items provided to a minor that are supplied to the minor by a parent are not considered
2. No. The court held that Robertson had ratified the conduct by accepting benefits from his
3. Appellate Court reversed, holding that the apartment was not a “necessary” for Young.
Young, age 18, and her friend (also a minor) decided to move out of their parents’ homes and
4. No. Although the contracts of minors can be disaffirmed, disaffirmance must occur within a
reasonable time of reaching majority. The court stated that “[h]ere, Bishop signed the 2002
diversion agreement in March 2002 at the age of 16. The agreement reflects her date of birth
5. No. The court stated that “We hold that where the consideration received by the infant cannot
be returned upon disaffirmance because it has been disposed of, the infant must account for
5. It Depends. If the court follows the majority rule, then as a matter of law and public policy,
the court should refuse to enforce the liability waiver against the child, as the parent cannot
waive preinjury negligence claims [See Galloway v. Iowa, 790 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa Sup. Ct.
14-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.