This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 3) Yes, The court in Hannegan determined to allow a minor to effectively disaffirm the underlying contract without restoring the full value of the property received under the contract. This enables a minor to void a contract without having to fix or replace anything that has been destroyed and have their money returned to them once they return what they have left of the product to its seller. The ruling is intended to protect minors from adults who could take advantage of there youth. This will be the determining factor of the outcome of the case because she is also a minor. 1A) Whether the car is returned to Christopher in the original condition or demolished is irrelevant. Like the ruling in Hannegan , if Hodge returns what is left of the vehicle the contract would be void and Christopher would have to repay the money that the vehicle was originally purchased for....
View Full Document