ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS
1. Michael, a minor, operates a one-man automobile repair shop. Anderson, having heard of
Michael’s good work on other cars, takes her car to Michael’s shop for a thorough engine
overhaul. Michael, while overhauling Anderson’s engine, carelessly fits an unsuitable piston ring
on one of the pistons, with the result that Anderson’s engine is seriously damaged. Michael offers
to return the sum that Anderson paid him for his work, but refuses to pay for the damage. Can
Anderson recover from Michael in tort for the damage to her engine? Why?
Answer: Liability for Tort Connected with Contract. No. Decision for Michael. It is clear that the
2. Explain the outcome of each transaction.
(a) On March 20, Andy Small became seventeen years old, but he appeared to be at least
eighteen (the age of majority).
On April 1, he moved into a rooming house in Chicago where he orally agreed to pay the
landlady $300 a month for room and board, payable at the end of each month. On April 30, he
refused to pay his landlady for his room and board for the month of April
(b) On April 4, he went to Honest Hal’s Carfeteria and signed a contract to buy a used car on
credit with a small down payment. He made no representation as to his age, but Honest Hal
represented the car to be in top condition, which it subsequently turned out not to be. . On April
25, he returned the car to Honest Hal and demanded a refund of his down payment.
(c) On April 7, Andy sold and conveyed to Adam Smith a parcel of real estate that he owned. On
April 28, he demanded that Adam Smith reconvey the land although the purchase price, which
Andy received in cash, had been spent in riotous living.
Answer: Liability for Necessaries. (a) Even where a minor is liable for necessaries he is not liable at
the contract rate but only for the reasonable value. Here, Andy is liable for the reasonable value
3. Jones, a minor, owned a 2012 automobile. She traded it to Stone for a 2013 car. Jones went on a
three-week trip and found that the 2013 car was not as good as the 2012 car. She asked Stone to
return the 2012 car but was told that it had been sold to Tate. Jones thereupon sued Tate for the
return of the 2012 car. Is Jones entitled to regain ownership of the 2012 car? Explain.
Answer: Disaffirmance. No. Although Jones could avoid the sale as against Stone, he could not
4. On May 7, Roy, a minor, a resident of Smithton, purchased an automobile from Royal Motors,
Inc., for $18,750 in cash. On the same day, he bought a motor scooter from Marks, also a minor,
for $750 and paid him in full. On June 5, two days before attaining his majority, Roy disaffirmed
the contracts and offered to return the car and the motor scooter to the respective sellers. Royal
Motors and Marks each refused the offers. On June 16, Roy brought separate appropriate actions
against Royal Motors and Marks to recover the purchase price of the car and the motor scooter.
By agreement on July 30, Royal Motors accepted the automobile. Royal then filed a counterclaim
against Roy for the reasonable rental value of the car between June 5 and July 30. The car was
not damaged during this period. Royal knew that Roy lived twenty-five miles from his place of
employment in Smithton and that he probably used the car, as he did, for transportation. What is
the decision as to (a) Roy’s action against Royal Motors, Inc., and its counterclaim against Roy;
and, (b) Roy’s action against Marks?
Answer: Liability for Necessaries. (a) Roy, a minor, had the right to disaffirm the contract for the
purchase of the automobile, if it is a non-necessary. On the other hand, if the car is considered a
necessary, Roy would be liable for the reasonable value of the automobile unless Royal allows
5. On October 1, George Jones entered into a contract with Johnson Motor Company, a dealer in
automobiles, to buy a used car for $10,850. He paid $1,100 down and, under the agreement, was
to make monthly payments thereafter of $325 each. Jones was seventeen years old at the time he
made the contract, but he represented to the company that he was twenty-one years old because
he was afraid that if the company knew his real age, it would not sell the car to him. His
appearance was that of a man of twenty-one years of age. After making the first payment on
November 1, he failed to make any more payments. On December 15, the company repossessed
the car under the terms provided in the contract. At that time, the car had been damaged and was
in need of repairs. On December 20, George Jones became of age and at once disaffirmed the
contract and demanded the return of the $1,425 he had paid on it. On refusal of the company to
do so, George Jones brought an action to recover the $1,425, and the company set up a
counterclaim for $1,500 for expenses it incurred in repairing the car. Who will prevail? Why?
Answer: Liability for Misrepresentation of Age. George Jones may disaffirm the contract even
though he deliberately misrepresented his age. Most courts would hold that Jones is not estopped
6. Rebecca entered into a written contract to sell certain real estate to Mary, a minor, for $80,000,
payable $4,000 on the execution of the contract and $800 on the first day of each month
thereafter until paid. Mary paid the $4,000 down payment and eight monthly installments before
attaining her majority. Thereafter, Mary made two additional monthly payments and caused the
contract to be recorded in the county where the real estate was located. Mary was then advised
by her lawyer that the contract was voidable. After being so advised, Mary immediately tendered
the contract to Rebecca, together with a deed reconveying all of Mary’s interest in the property
to Rebecca. Also, Mary demanded that Rebecca return the money paid under the contract.
Rebecca refused the tender and declined to repay any portion of the money paid to her by Mary.
Can Mary cancel the contract and recover the amount paid to Rebecca? Explain.
Answer: Ratification. No. Decision in favor of Rebecca. A minor may disaffirm a contract for the
sale of real property made by her during minority within a reasonable time after attaining her
7. Anita sold and delivered an automobile to Marvin, a minor. Marvin, during his minority,
returned the automobile to Anita, saying that he disaffirmed the sale. Anita accepted the
automobile and said she would return the purchase price to Marvin the next day. Later in the
day, Marvin changed his mind, took the automobile without Anita’s knowledge, and sold it to
Chris. Anita had not returned the purchase price when Marvin took the car. On what theory, if
any, can Anita recover from Marvin? Explain.
Answer: Liability for Tort Connected with Contract. Marvin, the minor, having made a contract for
the purchase of the car from Anita, and having received possession thereof, was the owner of the
8. Ira, who in 2011 had been found innocent of a criminal offense because of insanity, was released
from a hospital for the criminally insane during the summer of 2012 and since that time has
been a reputable and well-respected citizen and businessperson. On February 1, 2013, Ira and
Shirley entered into a contract in which Ira would sell his farm to Shirley for $100,000. Ira now
seeks to void the contract. Shirley insists that Ira is fully competent and has no right to avoid the
contract. Who will prevail? Why?
9. Daniel, while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he did not know the nature and
consequences of his acts, agreed to sell his 2011 automobile to Belinda for $13,000. The next
morning when Belinda went to Daniel’s house with the $13,000 in cash, Daniel stated that he
did not remember the transaction but that “a deal is a deal.” One week after completing the
sale, Daniel decides that he wishes to avoid the contract. What is the result?
10. Langstraat, age seventeen, owned a motorcycle that he insured against liability with Midwest
Mutual Insurance Company. He signed a notice of rejection attached to the policy indicating
that he did not desire to purchase uninsured motorists’ coverage from the insurance company.
Later he was involved in an accident with another motorcycle owned and operated by a party
who was uninsured. Langstraat now seeks to recover from the insurance company, asserting that
his rejection was not valid because he is a minor. Can Langstraat recover from Midwest?
Explain.
Answer: Ratification/Disaffirmance. Judgment for Midwest Mutual Insurance Company. This is
not a case in which the minor seeks to disaffirm a contract. What Langstraat seeks here is to
11. G.A.S. married his wife, S.I.S., on January 19, 2003. He began to suffer mental health problems
in 2009, during which year he was hospitalized at the Delaware State Hospital for eight weeks.
Similar illnesses occurred in 2011 and the early part of 2013, with G.A.S. suffering from such
symptoms as paranoia and loss of a sense of reality. In early 2014, G.A.S. was still committed to
the Delaware State Hospital, attending a regular job during the day and returning to the hospital
at night. During this time, he entered into a separation agreement prepared by his wife’s attorney.
G.A.S., however, never spoke with the attorney about the contents of the agreement; nor did he
read it prior to signing. Moreover, G.A.S. was not independently represented by counsel when he
executed this agreement. Can G.A.S. disaffirm the separation agreement? Explain.
Answer: Incapacity. Yes he may disaffirm it. Only competent persons can make a contract, and
where there is no capacity to understand, there is no contract. Although petitioner was still under
12. A fifteen-year–old minor was employed by Midway Toyota, Inc. On August 18, 2012, the minor,
while engaged in lifting heavy objects, injured his lower back. In October 2012 he underwent sur–
gery to remove a herniated disk. Midway Toyota paid him the appropriate amount of temporary
total disability payments ($53.36 per week) from August 18, 2012, through November 15, 2013.
In February 2014 a final settlement was reached for 150 weeks of permanent partial disability
benefits totaling $6,136.40. Tom Mazurek represented Midway Toyota in the negotiations leading
to the agreement and negotiated directly with the minor and his mother, Hermione Parrent. The
final settlement agreement was signed by the minor only. Mrs. Parrent, who was present at the
time, did not object to the signing, but neither she nor anyone else of “legal guardian status”
co-signed the agreement. The minor later sought to disaffirm the agreement and reopen his
workers’ compensation case. The workers’ compensation court denied his petition, holding that
Mrs. Parrent “participated fully in consideration of the offered final settlement and . . . ratified
and approved it on behalf of her ward . . . to the same legal effect as if she had actually signed
[it] . . .” The minor appealed. Decision?
Answer: Disaffirmance. Judgment for the minor. The Montana statute allows a minor to disaffirm
his contract. Because the minor claimant signed the petition for final settlement in his own
13. Rose, a minor, bought a new Buick Riviera from Sheehan Buick. Seven months later, while still a
minor, he attempted to disaffirm the purchase. Sheehan Buick refused to accept the return of the
car or to refund the purchase price. Rose, at the time of the purchase, gave all the appearance of
being of legal age. The car had been used by him to carry on his school, business, and social
activities. Can Rose successfully disaffirm the contract?
14. L. D. Robertson bought a pickup truck from King and Julian, who did business as the Julian
Pontiac Company. At the time of purchase, Robertson was seventeen years old, living at home
with his parents, and driving his father’s truck around the county to different construction jobs.
According to the sales contract, he traded in a passenger car for the truck and was given $2,723
credit toward the truck’s $6,743 purchase price, agreeing to pay the remainder in monthly
installments. After he paid the first month’s installment, the truck caught fire and was rendered
useless. The insurance agent, upon finding that Robertson was a minor, refused to deal with him.
Consequently, Robertson sued to exercise his right as a minor to rescind the contract and to
recover the purchase price he had already paid ($2,723 credit for the car traded in plus the one
month’s installment). The defendants argue that Robertson, even as a minor, cannot rescind the
contract because it was for a necessary item. Are they correct?
Answer: Disaffirmance by a Minor/Necessary Items. No, judgment for Robertson. A minor may
15. Haydocy Pontiac sold Jennifer Lee an automobile for $21,552, of which $20,402 was financed
with a note and security agreement. At the time of the sale, Lee, age twenty, represented to
Haydocy that she was twenty-one years old, the age of majority then, and capable of contracting.
After receiving the car, Lee allowed John Roberts to take possession of it. Roberts took the car
and has not returned. Lee has failed to make any further payments on the car. Haydocy has sued
to recover on the note, but Lee disaffirms the contract, claiming that she was too young to enter
into a valid contract. Can Haydocy recover the money from Lee? Explain.
Answer: Infancy. Judgment for Haydocy for the value of the automobile not to exceed its contract
price. Although the law allows infants the privilege of disaffirming contracts which operate to
16. Carol White ordered a $225 pair of contact lenses through an optometrist. White, an
emancipated minor, paid $100 by check and agreed to pay the remaining $125 at a later time.
The doctor ordered the lenses, incurring a debt of $110. After the lenses were ordered, White
called to cancel her order and stopped payment on the $100 check. The lenses could be used by
no one but White. The doctor sued White for the value of the lenses. Will the doctor be able to
recover the money from White? Explain.
Answer: Infancy. Judgment for doctor in the amount of $150 (amount considered reasonable by the
17. Williamson, her mortgage in default, was threatened with foreclosure on her home. She decided
to sell the house. The Matthewses learned of this and contacted her about the matter. Williamson
claims that she offered to sell her equity for $17,000 and that the Matthewses agreed to pay off
the mortgage. The Matthewses contend that the asking price was $1,700. On September 27, the
parties signed a contract of sale, which stated the purchase price to be $1,800 (an increase of
$100 to account for furniture in the house) plus the unpaid balance of the mortgage. The parties
met again on October 10 to sign the deed. Later that day, Williamson, concerned that she had
not received her full $17,000 consideration, contacted an attorney. Can Williamson set aside the
sale based upon inadequate consideration and mental weakness due to intoxication?
Answer: Intoxicated Persons. The drunkenness of a party at the time of making a contract may
render the contract voidable, but it does not render it void; and to render the contract voidable, it
18. Halbman, a minor, purchased a used Oldsmobile from Lemke for $11,250. Under the terms of
the contract, Halbman would pay $1,000 down and the balance in $125 weekly installments.
Upon making the down payment, Halbman received possession of the car, but Lemke retained the
title until the balance was paid. After Halbman had made his first four payments, a connecting
rod in the car’s engine broke. Lemke denied responsibility, but offered to help Halbman repair it
if Halbman would provide the parts. Halbman, however, placed the car in a garage where the
repairs cost $637.40. Halbman never paid the repair bill.
Hoping to avoid any liability for the vehicle, Lemke transferred title to Halbman even though
Halbman never paid the balance owed. Halbman returned the title with a letter disaffirming the
contract and demanded return of the money paid. Lemke refused. As the repair bill remained
unpaid, the garage removed the car’s engine and transmission and towed the body to Halbman’s
father’s house. Vandalism during the period of storage rendered the car unsalvageable. Several
times Halbman requested Lemke to remove the car. Lemke refused. Halbman sued Lemke for the
return of his consideration, and Lemke countersued for the amount still owed on the contract.
Decision?
Answer: Disaffirmance. Judgment for Halbman. Halbman, as a minor, had an absolute right to
disaffirm the contract for the purchase of the car, if it is not a necessary item. He is also entitled
19. On June 11, Chagnon bought a used Buick from Keser for $9950. Chagnon, who was then a
minor, obtained the contract by falsely advising Keser that he was over the age of majority. On
September 25, two months and four days after reaching his majority, Chagnon disaffirmed the
contract and, ten days later, returned the Buick to Keser. He then brought suit to recover the
money he had paid for the automobile. Keser counterclaimed that he suffered damages as the
direct result of Chagnon’s false representation of his age. A trial was had to the court, sitting
without a jury, all of which culminated in a judgment in favor of Chagnon against Keser in the
sum of $6557.80. This particular sum was arrived at by the trial court in the following manner:
the trial court found that Chagnon initially purchased the Buick for the sum of $9950 and that he
was entitled to the return of his $9950; and then, by way of setoff, the trial court subtracted from
the $9950 the sum of $3392.20, apparently representing the difference between the purchase
price paid for the vehicle and the reasonable value of the Buick on October 5, the date when the
Buick was returned to Keser. Is this legally correct? Do you agree? Why?
Answer: Liability for Misrepresentation of Age. Judgment for Keser. If a minor does not exercise
his right to disaffirm a contract within a “reasonable time” after he reaches the age of majority, he
20. On April 29, 2013, Kirsten Fletcher and John E. Marshall III jointly signed a lease to rent an
apartment for the term beginning on July 1, 2013, and ending on June 30, 2014, for a monthly
rent of $525 per month. At the time the lease was signed, Marshall was not yet eighteen years of
age. Marshall turned eighteen on May 30, 2013. Two weeks later, the couple moved into the
apartment. About two months later, Marshall moved out to attend college, but Fletcher remained.
She paid the rent herself for the remaining ten months of the lease and then sought contribution
for Marshall’s share of the rent plus court costs in the amount of $2,500. Can Fletcher collect
from Marshall?
Answer: Minors: Ratification. Yes. A contract of a minor is not void, but is voidable at the election
of the minor. After attaining majority, a minor may either disaffirm or ratify a contract that he
21. Rogers was a nineteen-year-old (the age of majority then being twenty-one) high school
graduate pursuing a civil engineering degree when he learned that his wife was expecting a
child. As a result, he quit school and sought assistance from Gastonia Personnel Corporation in
finding a job. Rogers signed a contract with the employment agency providing that he would pay
the agency a service charge if it obtained suitable employment for him. The employment agency
found him such a job, but Rogers refused to pay the service charge, asserting that he was a minor
when he signed the contract. Gastonia sued to recover the agreed-upon service charge from
Rogers. Should Rogers be liable under his contract? If so, for how much?
Answer: Minors: Necessaries. Yes. Judgment for Gastonia Personnel Corp. In general, a contract
with a minor is voidable by the minor unless the contract is for necessaries. The law is based on
ANSWERS TO “TAKING SIDES” PROBLEMS
Joseph Eugene Dodson, age sixteen, purchased a used pickup truck from Burns and Mary
Shrader. The Shraders owned and operated Shrader’s Auto Sales. Dodson paid $14,900 in cash
for the truck. At the time of sale, the Shraders did not question Mr. Dodson’s age, but thought he
was eighteen or nineteen. Dodson made no misrepresentation concerning his age. Nine months
after the date of purchase, the truck began to develop mechanical problems. A mechanic
diagnosed the problem as a burnt valve but could not be certain. Dodson, who could not afford
the repairs, continued to drive the truck until one month later, when the engine “blew up.”
Dodson parked the vehicle in the front yard of his parents’ home and contacted the Shraders to
rescind the purchase of the truck and to request a full refund. The Shraders refused. Explain
whether Dodson will be permitted to disaffirm the contract and recover the $4,900.
(a) What arguments would support Dodson’s termination of the contract?
(b) What arguments would support Shrader’s position that the
contract is not voidable?
(c) Which side should prevail? Explain.
ANSWER:
(a) A contract of minor is voidable during the infant’s minority and for a reasonable time thereafter.
A minor upon reaching majority can determine what contracts are fair and reasonable and
which ones are not.
(b) The Shraders would argue that this rule is not fair and that a minor should, at a minimum, pay
the reasonable value of the use of the good. The refund provided to the minor should not be
complete but it is only fair to deduct the minor’s benefit from the use of the automobile. If