dynamic business law essentials 3e 2016 chapter 11

With the “wind of independence at her back,” Lily entered the dealership, Bjorn Fjord Motors, alone.. After negotiating her best deal and signing a contract for the purchase of a new Fjo

© 2013 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc All rights reserved.

Chapter 11

Capacity and Legality

1

Chapter 11 Case Hypothetical and Ethical Dilemma

Tommy McCartney is a sixteen-year-old high school student He has worked forty hours per week at the local convenience store over the last year, and has diligently saved $6,000 for the purchase of his

first car.

While visiting a local car dealership, Tommy finds the “car of his dreams,” a used yellow Camaro Tommy walks into the dealership, announces to the dealership owner that he is “ready to buy,” negotiates $6,000 as the purchase price, and leaves the dealership a proud car owner.

Over the course of the next six months, Tommy drives the Camaro eight thousand miles, wears the tires thin, dents the left front fender, and regrets his purchase He realizes that in two short years college will beckon, and he knows that his parents cannot afford to pay for his higher education In

short, he wants his money back.

On a Saturday morning, Tommy returns to the car dealership, walks into the sales office, and hands the keys to the seller, asking for the return of his $6,000 The dealer chuckles, and then his look turns stern, saying “Son, I don’t owe you anything You’ve just learned a lesson in the ‘School of

Chapter 11 Case Hypothetical and Ethical Dilemma

Before her recent accident, eighty-two-year-old Lily Ledbetter was her own chauffeur She used to drive an automobile

to fulfill her once-active senior lifestyle, including outings for bridge tournaments, water aerobics, grocery shopping,

bill-paying, and family get-togethers

One day, Lily decided to purchase a new automobile Although her fifty-year-old son Ron suggested that he accompany her to the car dealership, she refused, reminding him that she was fully capable of taking care of her own responsibilities With the “wind of independence at her back,” Lily entered the dealership, Bjorn Fjord Motors, alone

After negotiating her best deal and signing a contract for the purchase of a new Fjord Mastodon sedan, Lily drove away in her rapidly-depreciating asset Five miles down the road, the steering wheel detached from the steering column (the steering wheel literally came off in her hands) and Lily crashed into a culvert She sustained severe personal injuries, including (but not limited to) a broken left leg, a broken pelvis, a collapsed lung, and numerous lacerations to her face Her attending physicians agree that Lily will never be able to drive an automobile again

Lily has since sued Fjord Motors, Inc (the manufacturer of the sedan) and Bjorn Fjord Motors, Inc (the dealership) for personal injury Both companies have filed answers denying liability on the basis of an exculpatory clause included in Lily’s purchase contract The exculpatory clause states that neither Fjord Motor, Inc nor Bjorn Fjord Motors, Inc is responsible to a customer or any other third party for a defect in the Fjord Mastodon that results in personal injury and/or economic harm Both companies have also filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, requesting that the court summarily dismiss both causes of action against Fjord Motors, Inc and Bjorn Fjord Motors, Inc on the basis of

the contract’s exculpatory clause

Should the court grant the defendants’ requests for judgment on the pleadings? Is the exculpatory clause enforceable

against Lily Ledbetter?

3

Contractual Capacity

Definition: Mental ability to understand rights and obligations established by contract, with the presumptive ability to understand how to comply with terms of

agreement

Contractual Capacity

General Rule of Law: Natural persons over the age of majority (18 in most states) are presumed to have the full legal capacity to

enter into binding legal contracts

5

Individuals Who Have Only Limited

Capacity to Contract

•Minors

•Mentally Incapacitated Persons

•Intoxicated Persons

Rules Regarding Minor’s “Contractual Power of

Avoidance”

Disaffirmance (“Power of Avoidance”): Minors’ right, until reasonable time after reaching age of majority, to

disaffirm/avoid their contracts

•To exercise right, minor need only demonstrate, through words and/or actions, intent to rescind contract

•Minor must return any consideration received (if still

in minor’s possession/control), regardless of condition

•Even if consideration damaged/destroyed, other party has no recourse against minor

•Rules designed to discourage competent parties from entering into contracts with minors 7

Exceptions to Minor’s Right to Disaffirm

Contract

•Contract for Necessaries (Definition):

Contracts that supply minor with basic necessities of life

-Examples: food, clothing, shelter, basic medical services

Exceptions to Minor’s Right to Disaffirm

Contract (Continued)

•Ratification (Definition): Acceptance of terms of contract (entered into as a minor) after reaching age

of majority

-Express Ratification: Occurs when, after reaching age of majority, individual states (either orally or in writing) that he/she intends to be

bound by contract entered into while a minor

-Implied Ratification: Occurs when former minor takes action after reaching age of majority

consistent with intent to ratify contract

9

Parental Liability for Minors’ Contracts,

Necessaries, and Torts

•General Rule: Parents not liable for contracts entered into by their minor children

-Exception: Contracts for necessaries

•General Rule: Parents not liable for torts committed by their minor children

Individuals Having No Capacity to

Contract

•Those adjudicated insane

•Those adjudicated habitually intoxicated

•Those with appointed legal guardians

11

Illegal Contracts

•Contracts with no legal purpose and/or subject matter

-Example: Agreement to commit crime/tort

•Contracts violating statute(s) and/or “public policy”

-Example: Usurious loan agreement (loan contract exceeding state-imposed maximum interest rate)

© 2013 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc All rights reserved.

Procedural Versus Substantive

Unconscionability

•Procedural Unconscionability-Relates to conditions that would impair one party’s understanding of a contract/contract terms

-Example: Adhesion contract (Contract created by

a party and presented to other party on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis)

•Substantive Unconscionability-Involves overly harsh

or lopsided substance in a contract

-Example: Contract in which one party has little to

no legal recourse

-13

Effect of Illegal Agreement

General Rule: When an agreement is

illegal, the contract is void