{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

notes - Halbman v Lemke o Teenager contracts to buy car...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Halbman v. Lemke o Teenager contracts to buy car fucks it up gives it back and wants his money back Must a minor who disaffirms a contract for the purchase of a non necessity make restitution to the vendor for damage after purchase but before dissafirmance? No, the minor may disaffirm at any time and must restore as much of the consideration as remains in his possession but may disaffirm even if has nothing left to return o New Hampshire rule says vendor of car can deduct value by which kid was enriched from what he has to return to the kid, if the kid returned the car in good condition the vendor could deduct the rental value for the time the kid had the car from how much he has to give back, basically the amount the minor is enriched is deducted from what the vendor must return Contracts entered by into infants are enforceable if they are necessities’ o Policy consideration is bc we don’t want to deter people from supplying minors with necessities Contracts entered into by mentally incompetent people used to be void but are now generally only considered voidable in most states, only voidable by the incompetent party not the competent party o Cognitive tests generally considered to be outdated o 2 nd rst: contract is voidable if person is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction (basically bat shit crazy and has no idea what is going on) OR unable to act in a reasonable manner AND the other party has reason to know of this condition o if contract is made on fair terms and other party is without knowledge the power of avoidance terminates to the extent necessary to prevent injustice o Sometimes a person with a mental deficiency can enter into a contract during a lucid interval, however if the contract seems to be unfair towards the metally deficient party the courts can and often will find it to be unenforceable, especially if the other party was in some type of confidential relationship with the retard
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ordizzi v. Bloomfield school dist. o Guy accused of liking dick resigns from being an elementary school teacher after principal and superintendant corner him in his apt. after he has gone through a bunch of shit and threaten legal action if he does not resign Not duress bc no illegal action Court finds homo may have been the victim of the principle and super exerting undue influence or over-persuasion o Courts will usually find a deal unenforceable if normal influence was used against a retard or excessive force is used against a normal person Factors for undue influence o Discussion occurs at unusual time or place o Consummation is in an unusual place o Insistent demand the business be finished at once o Emphasis on the untoward consequences of delay o Use of multiple persuaders against a single party o Absence of third party advisers to the guy getting fucked over o Emphasis that there is no time to contact third party adviser PER review
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}