Right you are, Bricker. A very common example of a minor entering into a legal contract is accepting employment. The minor agrees (usually by oral or implied contract) to abide by the terms of employment, in return for his wages and benefits the employer agrees upon. These terms are binding and legally enforceable.
“Would it surprise you to learn, handy, that you’re wrong in this?”
Do you watch Judge Judy, Bricker?
BTW Bricker, you might read this, which also answers your question on if a minor is 18 or 21 for another topic:
"Question 36: Is it legal for minors to make/break contracts?
Answer: First we have to decide what ‘minors’ means. The definition of ‘minor’ is determined by state law. In Arizona and Michigan, a minor is someone under 18. In some states minors are those under 21. The law says that minors do not have the ‘legal capacity’ to make contracts. "
Yes, I have watched easily 80 episodes of Judge Judy. I am very familiar with her both from that experience, and from reading Beauty Fades/Dumb Is Forever.
Why do you ask?
It’s unclear to me if you’re citing this quote for the proposition that a minor may be someone under 21, or for the proposition that a contract may never be enforced against a minor.
For the purposes of consenting to sexual activity, there is no state in the United States that defines a minor as someone under 21 years of age.
If the issue is the capacity to enter into contracts, then, as I said above, the GENERAL rule is that a minor may enter into a contract, and the terms of the contract are enforceable against the other party. The minor may disaffirm his end of it, and it will not be enforced against him.
This is GENERALLY true. There are some specific cases, however, in which is not true. Contracts for “necessities of life” may still be enforced against the minor.
Now, your link is on a page called “Law for Kids,” and it is one paragraph long.
It provides a very broad overview of the law, without addressing the nuances I mention, and even it cautions:
You see, handy? Even your own link acknowledges that they are stating a GENERAL RULE, not an all-inclusive commentary. They implicitly acknowledge that there’s more to the story, and urge the reader to consult a lawyer. That’s good, responsible advice.
You apparently feel no such responsibility. Your commentary, in total, was:
Unlike Law For Kids, you didn’t note that this was a general rule, or admit that there might be exceptions. What you said was wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
And it would be a shame if some credulous 17-year-old poster happened upon your post, decided it was the truth, and relied upon it in entering into a contract.
Does that possibility bother you at all?
- Rick
“You apparently feel no such responsibility. Your commentary, in total, was:”
Restating that JR said doesn’t mean I don’t feel no such responsibility. And you aren’t me, you DON’T know what I’m feeling.
" And it would be a shame if some credulous 17-year-old poster happened upon your post, decided it was the truth, and relied upon it in entering into a contract. "
That makes no sense, YOU’RE the one who said they could enter into contracts, not me or JR. So the question is, what if some 17 year old read what you said & entered into a contract thinking it was the truth & got sued big time, went on Judge Judy & lost big time, does that possibility bother you at all?
handy, give it up. Bricker (as usual) makes sense and is correct, and you (as usual) are wrong.
What Bricker is (clearly) saying here is that a minor could read your nonsense, conclude that he could sign a contract risk-free, and do so. That would be bad, especially if the contract unfairly took advantage of the minor.
As others have said, one type of contract (among others) that may be enforceable against a minor is a contract to obtain goods or services that are necessary. Estate of Hammond v. Aetna Cas. Co., 96 Ill.Dec. 270, 141 Ill.App.3d 963 (1st Dist. 1986).
(I almost cited a 1939 case for the same proposition that also found that attorneys’ services were “necessaries”, a point also illustrated by most handy posts.)
Also (to slightly hijack this in order to rebut something that was said in an earlier thread that isn’t worth resurrecting), a minor is not also not automatically immune from tort claims, either, although a very young child cannot be held responsible for an unintentional tort such as negligence. Cites: Speiser, et al, The American Law of Torts, Sec. 5.16; *Jorgensen v. Nudelman, 45 Ill.App.2d 350, 195 N.E.2d 422 (1st Dist 1963).
In Georgia, the age cutoff seems to be 13. Illinois generally makes kids less than 7 immune from negligence claims, while applying a fact based test for those between 7 and 14 years of age (taking into account the type of wrongdoing and the sophistication of the child) and generally allowing claims to proceed against those older than 14. Some cases dispense with these specific age distinctions and always use a fact-based analysis.
Usual disclaimers. I’m not your lawyer, and any 6-year olds (or anyone else) reading this shouldn’t rely on this to commit any torts or refrain from pursuing any tort claims that you might have. Your state might have different rules. See a lawyer license in your state for actual advice.
Urf. Apparently, proofreader services are also necessaries.
Among other problems, this should have been: “a minor is also not automatically immune” & “licensed in your state”
Urf. Apparently, proofreader services are also necessaries.
Among other problems, this should have been: “a minor is also not automatically immune” & “licensed in your state”
True. Perhaps you are racked with guilt over your incorrect posts. I don’t know that. But in the absence of any other evidence, I think I’m entitled to conclude that your actions reflect your feelings. You continue to post inaccurate information, repeated from questionable sources with complete credulity on your part. When you information comes from reliable sources, you apparently fail to understand the complete import of it; thus attributing a misstatement of the law to Judge Judy when the likelihood is that you failed to completely understand what she was saying.
Certainly that was true of the “Law For Kids” post.
If some 17-year-old read what I wrote, they would be in an excellent position to proceed forward, since I accurately reported that there are certain type of contracts which may be enforced against a minor. Your characterization of what I said is, as is apparently your wont, again incomplete. I never said that a minor may enter into contracts in all cases.
In any event, it’s the minor whose position is secure. A minor entering into a contract can enforce the contract against the adult; he may also be able to disaffirm it himself, depending on the type of contract.
handy - please consider adding legal issues to medical ones as topics you not respond to, unless and until you change your method of evaluating information - I beg you. It’s not right to sound as confident and authoritative as you do when you really aren’t sure of the truth. You have a sharp wit and an ability to turn a phrase – this garners you admiration and respect from those that read you. But when you post inaccurate information, you abuse that power. Please, please consider limiting your input on legal topics.
- Rick