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

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. 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 o Contract by infant is unenforceable however they do have to return any considerations still in their possession 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 Contracts entered by into infants are enforceable if they are neccesities o Policy consideration is bc we don’t want to deter people from supplying minors with neccesities Contracts entered into by mentally incompetent people used to be void but are now generally only considered voidable in most states o Cognitive tests generally considered to be outdated o 2 nd rst: contract is voidable if person is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction or unable to act in a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
Background image of page 1

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

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

Page1 / 2

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

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