B-54
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 13
CAPACITY AND LEGALITY
13-1A. Mental incompetence
(Chapter 13—Pages 259–260)
The court held that the deeds were valid. A state intermediate appellate court held that Feiden might
have been competent at the time of signing and deferred to the trial court’s judgment on the issue. The
13-2A. Contracts by minors
(Chapter 13—Pages 256–257)
Yes. Contracts of a minor are voidable at any time during minority or within a reasonable time after
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 13 B-55
The court granted a summary judgment in Brass’s favor, finding that the contract was overbroad in its
time and geographic limitations. On MSI’s appeal, a state intermediate appellate court affirmed this
13-4A. Contracts by minors
(Chapter 13—Pages 256–257)
On this issue, the court ruled in favor of the defendants. The court reasoned that because Samsonov
signed the CSKA contract “before he turned eighteen years old, the agreement is voidable. * * * [T]here
13-5A. Exculpatory clause
(Chapter 13—Pages 268–269)
The court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion, noting the “extensive nature of the
B-56 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 13
in bargaining strength and used it to form an adhesion contract. Eelbode was required to take the
physical pursuant to his employment application. He was sent to Chec and was required to sign the
13-6A. Unconscionability
(Chapter 13—Pages 265–268)
IFF won in court. In its decision, the court distinguished between procedural and substantive
unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability may arise in the bargaining process and “is
13-7A. Gambling debts
(Chapter 13—Page 261)
The court held that Aubin had defrauded Carnival and owed Carnival $25,000 (plus attorneys’ fees and
costs). The court was bound by a higher court’s earlier decision in this case that debts associated with
gambling are unenforceable for reasons of public policy. But this court concluded that the state’s public
13-8A. Adhesion contracts
(Chapter 13—Pages 265–266)
Yes. The Court of Appeals of Arizona reversed the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for a
13-9A. Gambling contracts
(Chapter 13—Page 261)
The Georgia Supreme Court held in part that an agreement to purchase a ticket in a lottery sponsored by
another state and to share the proceeds if it won was not a gambling contract. The court explained that
B-58 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 13
1. Rather than just enforce covenants not to compete, courts generally must consider and weigh
the protection of legitimate business interests of the employer, the potentially unduly oppressive effect
2. Holding a covenant not to compete void frustrates the intent of the contracting parties.
Although a reasonable time period or geographical area is not capable of precise calculation, the all or
3. The court granted the request. Glenn appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which
reversed the order of the lower court. The appellate court recognized that “[a]n employer may not
simply forbid his employee from subsequently operating a similar business. The employer must have an
interest which he is trying to legitimately protect. There must be some reason why it would be unfair to
allow the employee to compete with the former employer.” The court also identified as factors to weigh