What does the minor have to return.... Forum

[corporatelaw87]

When a contract is avoided. The e&e says "whatever she still has of the major's contract performance at the time of avoidance". It's not really explained well though. Can someone elaborate?

[JazzOne]

When a contract is avoided. The e&e says "whatever she still has of the major's contract performance at the time of avoidance". It's not really explained well though. Can someone elaborate?

The distinction here is probably similar to the difference between expectation damages and restitution. The major cannot demand the benefit of the bargain, but I would think he/she could sue off the contract for restitution (unjust enrichment type of theory).

[joobacca]

i don't get your question OP. isn't avoidance cancellation of the K? all duties/obligation discharged? and, i agree with with jazzone said. if someone got something, then he should probably give it back. just not understanding what you're asking.

[JazzOne]

i don't get your question OP. isn't avoidance cancellation of the K? all duties/obligation discharged? and, i agree with with jazzone said. if someone got something, then he should probably give it back. just not understanding what you're asking.

The question was vague, but I assumed it was a situation where the minor received some benefit and then voided the contract without performing his end of the bargain. He's perfectly within his rights to avoid the contract, but I don't think he can keep the benefit without paying restitution.

[kswiss]

I'd imagine that in practice it would come out as fairly as possible. The rule is a protection for minors to save them from contracts since they are young, so as long as restitution will protect that interest while being fair, I'm sure it will work.

We had an example case where some kid bought a car from his boss on a payment plan, then the car broke. The kid avoided the K and sued to get his money back. In the meantime, he left the car at the shop, they didn't get paid, so they pulled the engine to pay themselves and left the car in the parking lot, where it got vandalized.

The court returned the ruined car to the boss, but still required the boss to pay the kid back for what he'd already paid.

Moral of the story: don't make a deal with a minor.

[joobacca]

I'd imagine that in practice it would come out as fairly as possible. The rule is a protection for minors to save them from contracts since they are young, so as long as restitution will protect that interest while being fair, I'm sure it will work.

We had an example case where some kid bought a car from his boss on a payment plan, then the car broke. The kid avoided the K and sued to get his money back. In the meantime, he left the car at the shop, they didn't get paid, so they pulled the engine to pay themselves and left the car in the parking lot, where it got vandalized.

The court returned the ruined car to the boss, but still required the boss to pay the kid back for what he'd already paid.

Moral of the story: don't make a deal with a minor.

what about sex with minors?

[JazzOne]

I'd imagine that in practice it would come out as fairly as possible. The rule is a protection for minors to save them from contracts since they are young, so as long as restitution will protect that interest while being fair, I'm sure it will work.

We had an example case where some kid bought a car from his boss on a payment plan, then the car broke. The kid avoided the K and sued to get his money back. In the meantime, he left the car at the shop, they didn't get paid, so they pulled the engine to pay themselves and left the car in the parking lot, where it got vandalized.

The court returned the ruined car to the boss, but still required the boss to pay the kid back for what he'd already paid.

Moral of the story: don't make a deal with a minor.

what about sex with minors?

The age of consent is Texas is 17, so we're fine with it down here.

[joobacca]

i am talking 13 brah

[Kiersten1985]

If a minor voids a K, the minor is not obligated to return any benefit received (i.e. return the adult to the status quo), but the adult party must return any benefit received from the minor to the minor. This is different from voidance due to mental incompetence, which requires that the voiding party return the other party to the status quo.

Exceptions:
-the benefit received by the minor was a necessity (food, clothing, shelter). See Webster v. Sheridan (holding that an apartment is not a "necessary" shelter if the minor has a home to return to).
-adult party could make an unjust enrichment argument.

[LogosEther]

The above is true. The thing is, the minor will have to give back what's left of what he received. So if he gave a bunch of stuff away and doesn't know where to find it anymore, or if he broke the thing that he bought (crashed a car), he won't be liable for that value lost. But yeah, he defintely can't just run around making contracts, suing for what he paid, and keeping the stuff he got.