cont II digest - Competency and other limits Contracts...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Competency and other limits Contracts entered into by Minors o Generally voidable at the option of the minor but enforceable against the adult; however, a minor, and usually their guardian, is always liable for the value of necessities. Still must return any consideration the minor still has in his possession to the seller but if no consideration remains then minor doesn’t have to make any restitution for non necessities and can recover all the consideration they gave o Halbman v. Lemke: Minor breaks a car he hasn’t finished paying for yet, minor can disaffirm contract and does not have to make restitution to seller. o Webster st. v. Sheridan: Even a contract for an apt. is not a necessity if the minor could have been living at home and chose to move out Mental Incapacity o RST 2d sec. 15 A contract is voidable by a party if by reason of mental disease or defect He is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction (original common law test) OR He is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction and the other party has reason to know of this condition (expansion added by the RST 2d) o If competent party is unaware of MI then court may use estoppel to prevent crazy person from voiding contract as justice requires Undue Influence o Ordizzi v. Bloomfield school dist: P claimed employees of D used duress, fraud and undue influence to get him to resign after he got caught being a homo No duress bc no illegal act, no fraud because no fiduc. duty between employer and employee Court does find undue influence bc of high pressure tactics used by D, factors for undue influence: Discussion occurs at unusual time or place Consumation is in an unusual place Insistent demand that the businee be finished at once Emphasis on the negative consequences of delay Use of multiple persuaders against a single person Absence of third party advisers for party getting screwed Empahasis that there is no time to contact a 3rd party adviser
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
The effects of adopting a writing Parol Evidence Rule When the rule does not apply o Only applies to oral evidence from before the writing, doesn’t applies to oral evidence after the writing unless there is a “no oral modifications” clause Clause will not be enforced if D waived the benefits of the clause (D knew P was doing extra work pursuant to an oral modification can’t later refuse to pay for extra work bc of no oral modifications clause o Never bars evidence that contract is unenforceable to begin with (fraud, duress, mistake, illegality, lack of consideration) o PER does not bar evidence of collateral agreements, even one supported by
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 ]}

Page1 / 8

cont II digest - Competency and other limits Contracts...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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