Contracts with minors?

Question

Lets say a minor goes into a contract of buying a number of furniture. After making several payments the minor defaulted and disaffirmed his contract, and allowed the company to remove the furniture. However they refused to return the money that the minor had already paid. Should the minor be able to recover these payments? Why or why not. Looking for legitimate law oriented answers.

Answer 1

The majority rule is that the company will be required to return all the payments the minor made. The policy rationale is that minors are considered too immature to realize the consequences of a contract, and others should not benefit from that.

A tiny minority of jurisdictions will rule that the minor's recovery will be offset by the reasonable value of using the furniture, or the amount the furniture has depriciated in value, eg Dodson v. Shrader (Tennessee).

The rule is different where the contract is one for necessities, such as food or shelter, or where the minor willfully misrepresents his age.

Answer 2

The above answer is the better one. But there are a number of "if"s. Firstly, the common law rule is that a contract with minors will only be binding if it is one for "necessaries" (or a beneficial contracts of service). Necessaries don't only encompass food or shelter -- it is a woolly concept which includes contracts for things to sustain a minor's position in life, and those which are suitable for his/her station.

Now if the contract was held void ab initio, there was never any obligation to pay money in the first place. The position in this case would be simple -- the minor would be entitled to his money back, on principles of unjust enrichment.

However if the contract is found to be valid and enforcible, what happens in this instance is less certain. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "disaffirming" the contract. If you mean the minor doesn't intend to make any more payments, then this would probably mean that he has repudiated it.

Usually such a contract, being one for finance, has a specific clause dealing with the contractual rights of parties in the event of default. In law however, there is also a right of termination in the event of a serious breach or repudiation. Title to the furniture won't have passed until it was fully paid out according to the contract, so the furniture company would be entitled to its furniture back. However the right of the company to the payments arises independently of any obligation of performance on its part, so it will be also entitled to keep the moneys at common law.

The minor in this case would have to seek equitable relief against forfeiture. In some jurisdictions this has been put into a statutory form, but is originally an equitable remedy. Where termination results in the forfeiture of a proprietary interest, equity may intervene -- particularly if insistence on forfeiture is unconscionable. The basis for this is the unconscionability, and is a discretionary remedy -- the minor may fail to recover.

In this sense the law makes good sense -- the infant entered into the contract, if he/she has the capacity then he/she is in the same position as an adult, they are in the contract with their eyes wide open. They know the consequences of breach from the contract. If the conduct of the company is not acting unconscionably or inequitably in some way (e.g. contributing to the breach), then the law won't intervene to save a bad bargain.

The position on this may be altered by statute, but naturally that differs from place to place, so no meaningful answer can be given. You haven't mentioned a jurisdiction, so naturally none of this may be relevant!

Answer 3

A minor cannot be bound by his contracts. The scenario your created will not happen. No one will extend credit to a minor.
In the real world, if a minor wanted to buy furniture, he would have to pay cash for it, up front. Or, he could make time payments until the furniture is paid for, then he would get his merchandise.
He could then not return it unless he had a valid reason for rejecting the items.

Answer 4

If the minor is the only 1 who signed the contract and their wasn't any1 co-signing. Then IT WAS NEVER A CONTRACT FROM THE BEGINNING!!! SO THEY HAVE TO GIVE BACK THE $$$

Answer 5

He/she should get at least some of it back. You do in Kansas wether you are a minor or not, the law is the same!

Answer 6

A minor may not enter into a contract.