Green v. Star Chevrolet PC3 Brief

Green v. Star Chevrolet PC3 Brief - Star Chevrolet argues...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Green v. Star Chevrolet (PC3 p389) Issue Was Green in capacity to contract with Star Chevrolet? Can Green disaffirm his contract with Star Chevrolet? Rule Contract 1)Offer 2)Acceptance 3)Consideration Capacity - the ability to incur legal obligations and acquire legal rights. Disaffirmance - the right by a minor to avoid a contract. Ratification - affirms the contract and surrenders the right to avoid. Application Green argues that as a minor of 16 years of age he did not have the capacity to form a contract with Star Chevrolet to purchase a used car. Even if Green purchased the car, he clearly contacted to Disaffirm his contract with Star Chevrolet, because Green was able to travel to work with a car pool the car was not a necessity for his living purpose.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Star Chevrolet argues that even if Green was a minor, it was his duty to restore Star Chevrolet to a condition before the contract in this case, for the use of the used car during the several months driven and the value they would have gotten from a different seller. Star Chevrolet that the car was necessary to Green's living, because he used it to travel to work, and if it was possible to always car pool without a car of his own, Green would not have purchased the car.\ Conclusion Yes Green can disaffirm the contract with Star Chevrolet because he was not in capacity to contract. But Green should assume some liability for use of the car and not receive a full refund....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online