The capacity of either the natural or artificial person in contracts determines whether they have the ability to enter into legally binding contracts. If a contract is made with a person with legal incapacity, the contract is voidable at the option of the person who had the incapacity at the time of entering into the contract. Legal incapacity is seen when dealing with minors and with people who are not mentally competent to know the legal implications that the contract will have on their rights at the time of signing the contract (Koffman and Macdonald 466)..
A Legally binding contract cannot occur when a person enters into a contract with a person whom it should have been obvious that they did not have the capacity t contract such a s when a person is obviously drunk. Since Joe was evident to sue that Joe was completely drunk when he entered the contract, she has no claim over him. Joe would argue temporary insanity and unless he ratifies the contract when he was sober, the contract is voidable
Minors are obliged by the sale of goods Act to pay for necessities (goods necessary for the survival of the minor). However, the Act protects minors from exorbitant prices by requiring that they pay only a reasonable price for the necessity. Jean cannot disaffirm the contract. The courts will have her pay the reasonable price of eighty dollars for the coat.
When minors enter into contracts for the supply of non necessaries, they are not bound by the contract and can disaffirm such contracts when they are still minors. If they want to reaffirm the contract after turning eighteen, the must do so within reasonable time after turning eighteen. Willy affirmed the contract by conduct when he made payments for the car and went back for repairs. He is incapable of disaffirming the contract.
Minors are legally bound by contracts that when taken as a whole are beneficial to them such as contracts for apprenticeship and education. In this case, the minor will be required to pay the fees for the services given out. Chris can sue for a refund of the money for the money for the services that the company had not already offered.
The infant’s relief Act says that all the contracts for the supply of goods to minors other than necessities is void. For the contracts to be binding on the minor, the nature of the goods is considered when a seller tries to enforce such a contract. The seller must proof that the goods that they supplied are a necessary for the way of life of the minor since they will only be able to claim from the minor only that part of the supply that is necessary.
When two intoxicated persons enter into a contract for the sale of an item, the contract will not be enforceable since they lacked the legal capacity to contract. In this case, the courts will look at the intent of the persons to be legally bound. In deciding such cases, the court will also seek to protect the incapacitated person without punishing the other party to the contract. If Taylor and Nate enter into the contract when both of them were in a state where both could reasonably judge the ramifications that their actions had at the time of agreeing the contract. Nate can escape liability if he proves he has a history of drunkenness.
Marylyn will win in the case. When an adult enters into a contract with a minor, the infant can either do his part of contract or request that the courts void it. As a general rule, a person who enters into a contract with a minor does it in their own peril. Voiding a contract is wholly at the discretion of the minor and the other party is therefore liable for default.