HW#1lawc001

HW#1lawc001 - 3) Yes, The court in Hannegan determined to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Law C001 HW #1 1) Yes, According to the case of Swalberg v. Hannegan , Kathy Hodge would be able to rescind the contract in which she purchased Peter Christopher’s Honda and get her money back. “A disaffirming minor must only return the property remaining within his or her control.” Hannegan . These cases draw comparisons to each other in the sense that a vehicle was bought by a minor and was later returned in a lessened state of value. In Hannegan the vehicle was not destroyed but when it was returned its value had greatly depreciated from the cost of which it was purchased at. 2) No, Even though Kathy had demolished the vehicle she would be able to return whatever she has in her possession, even if it is only a hubcap, without having to repair the vehicle to its original state in which she purchased it. When the vehicle was returned to the original owner in Hannegan the value had depreciated by over one third of the purchased price. In this case the car has been destroyed, leaving it almost worthless
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the 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

This document was uploaded on 10/07/2008.

Page1 / 2

HW#1lawc001 - 3) Yes, The court in Hannegan determined to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online