1
Chapter 12
Capacity and Legality
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
12.1 Minor
Yes. Fountain’s estate is liable to Yale under the doctrine of necessaries. The general rule is that minor
child’s contracts are voidable. The rule that a minor’s contracts are voidable, however, is not absolute. An
exception to this rule, known as the doctrine of necessaries, is that a minor may not avoid a contract for
goods or services necessary for his health and sustenance. Thus, when a medical service provider renders
necessary medical care to an injured minor, two contracts arise: the primary contract between the provider
12.2 Illegal Contract
Yes. The appellate court held that the partnership agreement between Parente and Pirozzoli was an illegal
contract and was therefore void and unenforceable. The partnership was formed for an illegal purpose,
which was to obtain a liquor license for a bar in Pirozzoli’s name without disclosing to the state liquor
commission that issued the license that Parente was also an owner of the business. If Parente’s prior
criminal record had been disclosed to the liquor commission, the bar would not have been issued a liquor
license. The court stated, “Here, the partnership agreement was not offensive on its face, but had an
illegal, ulterior purpose, namely, to evade the strictures of the liquor control laws. Because the partnership
furthering overriding policies. Knowing that they will receive no help from the courts and must trust
completely to each other’s good faith, the parties are less likely to enter an illegal arrangement in the first
12.3 Infancy Doctrine
2
Finish Line, her Finish Line employment contract was voidable. Lindsey effectively voided the contract
by filing the lawsuit. Filing suit in court effectively repudiated Lindsey’s employment contract with
Tennessee, 2005)
12.4 Capacity to Contract
Yes, Martha M. Carr, because of her mental diseases of schizophrenia and depression lacked the mental
capacity to enter into the contract with Raymond C. and Betty Campbell. Schizophrenia is a psychotic
depression, makes it inequitable to order specific performance.” The court of appeals held that Carr’s
mental diseases of schizophrenia and depression affected her ability to make an informed decision
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
12.5 Ethics Case
would make the release of liability clause ineffectual. The U.S. district court enforced the release of
liability clause and granted CST’s motion for summary judgment. It could be argued that CST, by placing
a release of liability clause in its contract, acted unethically. However, release of liability clauses are well
recognized by the law, and their use in certain kinds of contracts have been found to be enforceable. Mero
for the District of Columbia, 2013)
12.6 Ethics
An illegal contract is one where the object of the contract is unlawful. Courts have held that where a
license is required to practice a profession, a person must have that license before providing services
payment from UAE because the contract between Sturdza and UAE was an illegal contract and therefore
3
Arab Emirates, 11 A.3d 251, 2011 D.C. App. Lexis 2 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011)