Question answering Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Question answering - Essay Example In other words, the car dealer cannot get away with this contract even though John is not capable of entering into binding contracts. However, John’s incapacity to enter into a binding contract is subject to four exceptions, which the car dealer can cite if they have enough prove. These include the following: i. Beneficial contracts such as employment ii. Contracts involving necessaries iii. Contracts involving company shares, land, marriage, and partnerships except if they are voidable iv. Contracts that are approved by a child after attaining the age of the majority. Among these exceptions, the dealer can only try to argue in line with the second one, though it will still be very hard to convince the court that the contract involved necessary goods. It is clear that John believed that a car is a necessity, which perhaps was due to the influence he got from Facebook and his friends. This fact can hardly make the contract binding on the child, because the law considers them in capable of making valid decisions on their own. Therefore, the court will argue that John could not be relied to decide, by himself, what is a necessity. On this ground, therefore, the car dealer is not likely to get any reprieve from the exceptions. Another provision of the law is that a contract involving a minor is voidable. This means that, prior to reaching the age of the majority; a child has the freedom to withdraw any contract. Even though John does not have any justifiable reasons to cancel the contract, the car dealer will still lose the case because the law allows minors to do so on a whim if it is advantageous for them to do so (Hugh 256). The reason why the car dealer was cautious on entering into a contract with a child was because he feared the consequences if the child breached the contract. His instinct was correct, however, he did a mistake when he at last accepted to sign the contract even after the child’s parent declined to co-sign the loan. All in all, i f the parent had agreed to co-sign the loan; this could not have given him a complete reprieve. The best strategy was to ask the minor to let his parent sign the full loan on his behalf, since parents are not legally responsible on contracts entered by their children unless when they are acting as their agent.1 Therefore, John will win in his bid to get the contract invalidated by the court and recover the $500, down payment. Question two: a contract with an illegal purpose Smuggling is an illegal activity and it is against the interest of the public, therefore, any suit regarding this case will face many hurdles as the court does not condone participation in illegal activities. Smuggling is under a class of illegal contracts, which are unenforceable as they imposes no obligations and creates no rights on the parties who are involved. In an illegal contract, losses and gains remain where they have fallen because money and assets changing hands are not recoverable. The court’s idea is that illegal contracts are undesirable in the eyes of the public and hence, they do not disserve assistance considering they do not contribute towards well-being of individuals in the society.2 Therefore, the court will refuse to help the mechanic enforce their contract with Jack and will also not give any