This document summarizes the concept of capacity to contract. [1] It discusses how minors, those with mental disabilities, and intoxicated persons may lack capacity. [2] It explains that those without capacity can disaffirm or avoid contracts, but may also later ratify them. [3] The duties upon disaffirmance, such as returning consideration, are also outlined.
1. C H A P T E R
14
Capacity to Contract
No brilliance is needed in the law.
Nothing but common sense, and
relatively clean fingernails.
John Mortimer
14-1
2. Learning Objectives
• Explain concept of capacity
• List the classes of persons without
capacity and the effect on a
contract
• Describe the rights to disaffirm or
ratify and duties of disaffirmance
14-2
3. Definition
• A person must have the
ability to give consent
before he can be
legally bound to an
agreement, thus
capacity is the ability to
incur legal obligations
and acquire legal rights
14-3
4. The Lack of Capacity
• Groups lacking capacity:
– Minors
– Those suffering a mental disability
– Those who are intoxicated
• Effect -- a person who contracts
without the requisite capacity may
avoid the contract at his/her option
14-4
5. Minor’s Right to Disaffirm
• Right to avoid a contract is disaffirmance
– Only the minor may avoid the contract
• Example of disaffirmance:
– Woodman v. Kera LLC: Parent or guardian
cannot contractually bind a minor ward.
• If minor wants to affirm the contract, adult
party must perform
14-5
6. Details About Disaffirmance
• Minors may not avoid contracts if
statutory exception exists
– Marriage, educational loans, insurance
• Emancipation of minor from parents does
not give minor capacity to contract
• Minor’s power to avoid contracts does
not end on day he/she reaches age of
majority, but continues for reasonable
time thereafter
14-6
7. Ratification
• Ratification occurs when a person who
reaches majority indicates that he/she
intends to be bound by a contract
made while still a minor
– May be express or implied by conduct
Joining ROTC during high
school indicates intent to serve
in the military as an adult
14-7
8. Duties Upon Disaffirmance
• Each party has duty to return to the
other any consideration (money,
goods) that the other has given
• If the consideration given by the adult
has been lost, damaged, destroyed,
or depreciated in value, courts are
split on whether the minor party must
make restitution to the adult party
14-8
9. Duties Upon Disaffirmance
• Disaffirming minors are
required to pay reasonable
value for necessaries
(required for survival)
furnished to them
– Quasi-contractual theory
• Example: Young v. Weaver
– Was the apartment really
a necessity for Young?
14-9
10. Capacity & Mental Impairment
• Like minors, people who suffer from a
mental illness or defect are
disadvantaged in their ability to
protect their interests in the bargaining
process, thus contract law makes their
contracts void or voidable
• Test: Did the person have sufficient
mental capacity to understand the
nature and effect of the contract?
14-10
11. Right to Disaffirm or Ratify
• If a contract is voidable due to mental
impairment, the person may:
– Disaffirm the contract
– Once he/she regains capacity, ratify the
contract
• Upon disaffirmance, consideration
must be returned and the person is
liable for reasonable value of any
necessaries
14-11
12. Rogers v. Household Life Insurance C
• Facts & Opinion:
– Alan Rogers diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and
dementia; his son, Jason, was appointed
guardian (no limitations on guardianship power)
– May 2007, Jason assisted Alan with online
application for life insurance offered by HLIC
• Application did not inquire about health status
– HLIC approved application and premium paid
– June 2007, Alan died and HLIC argued it was not
obligated to perform since Alan’s incapacity
rendered contract void under Idaho law
14-12
13. Rogers v. Household Life Insurance C
• Idaho Supreme Court Ruling:
– Idaho statute declares a person adjudicated as
incapacitated to lack contractual capacity as a
matter of law, but Jason claims contract is merely
voidable
– Legislative purpose and statute’s plain meaning
leads to conclusion that appointment of guardian
with full powers represents judicial finding that the
ward lacks capacity to contract as a matter of law
– District court properly granted HLIC's motion for
summary judgment
14-13
14. Contracts of Intoxicated Persons
• Intoxication is a ground
for lack of capacity only
when it is so extreme
that the person is
unable to understand
the nature of the
bargaining process
• Note: courts are not
sympathetic!
14-14
15. Test Your Knowledge
• True=A, False = B
– Capacity is the ability to know the
details of the legal rights in a contract
– Ratification is the actual signature on
the written contract
– Disaffirmance is the right to avoid a
contract due to incapacity
14-15
16. Test Your Knowledge
• True=A, False = B
– A minor’s right to disaffirm a contract
ends on the day the minor achieves
the age of majority
– Intoxicated persons are always
allowed to disaffirm a contract
– Persons with a mental incapacity
may disaffirm a contract, but cannot
ratify the contract
14-16
17. Test Your Knowledge
• Multiple Choice
– The “benefit rule” states that when
a minor disaffirms a contract:
a) They have no further duties
b) Recovery of the full purchase price is
subject to deduction for the minor’s
use of the merchandise
c) They have the duty to return the
subject goods
14-17
18. Test Your Knowledge
• Multiple Choice
– Ted just turned 17 years old. Emancipated
from his parents, Ted bought a car from
CarCo. Two weeks after he bought the car,
Ted damaged it. Ted returned the vehicle to
CarCo asking for a full refund. CarCo must:
a) Give Ted back the full amount
b) Pay Ted only the present value of the car
c) Pay Ted the purchase price less the
current value of the car
14-18
19. Thought Question
• The requirement of
capacity is rooted in
ancient law. Should
the law continue to
protect minors and
intoxicated persons?
Why or why not?
14-19
Editor's Notes
At common law, the age of majority was 21. However, the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. In response, the age of majority has been lowered by 49 states. In almost all of these states, the age of majority for contracting purposes is now 18.
Five-year-old Trent Woodman’s parents had his birthday party at Bounce Party (operated by Kera LLC). Bounce Party is an indoor play area with inflatable play equipment. Before the party, Trent’s father, Jeffrey Woodman, signed a liability waiver on Trent’s behalf. Trent jumped off a slide and broke his leg. Trent’s mother, Sheila Woodman, filed suit on his behalf against Kera on several bases, including negligence and gross negligence. Kera filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Trent’s claims were barred by the liability waiver. Woodmans argued the waiver was invalid as a matter of law. Trial court ruled that waiver barred Trent’s negligence claim but not his gross negligence claim. Both parties appealed. Court of appeals reversed and held the waiver invalid to bar the negligence claim. Kera appealed. Issue: can a parent bind his child by contract if the child could not otherwise be bound? Michigan common law rule is clear: a guardian, including a parent, cannot contractually bind his minor ward . Affirmed in favor of Trent.
Dodson v. Schrader : Joseph Dodson, age 16, bought a 1984 Chevrolet truck from Burns and Mary Shrader, owners of Shrader’s Auto Sales, for $4,900 cash. At the time, Burns Shrader, believing Dodson to be 18 or 19, did not ask Dodson’s age and Dodson did not volunteer it. Dodson drove the truck for about eight months, when he learned from an auto mechanic that there was a burned valve in the engine. Dodson did not have the money for the repairs, so he continued to drive the truck without repair for another month until the engine “blew up” and stopped operating. He parked the car in the front yard of his parents’ house. He then contacted the Shraders, rescinding the purchase of the truck and requesting a full refund. The Shraders refused to accept the truck or to give Dodson a refund. Dodson then filed an action seeking to rescind the contract and recover the amount paid for the truck. Before the court could hear the case, a hit-and-run driver struck Dodson’s parked truck, damaging its left front fender. At the time of the circuit court trial, the truck was worth only $500. The Shraders argued that Dodson should be responsible for paying the difference between the present value of the truck and the $4,900 purchase price. The trial court found in Dodson’s favor, ordering the Shraders to refund the $4,900 purchase price upon delivery of the truck. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, and the Shraders appealed. Court: “The first of these minority rules is called the “Benefit Rule.” This rule holds that, upon rescission, recovery of the full purchase price is subject to a deduction for the minor’s use of the merchandise. This rule recognizes that the traditional rule in regard to necessaries has been extended so far as to hold an infant bound by his contracts, where he failed to restore what he has received under them to the extent of the benefit actually derived by him from what he has received from the other party to the transaction. The other minority rule holds that the minor’s recovery of the full purchase price is subject to a deduction for the minor’s “use” of the consideration he or she received under the contract, or for the “depreciation” or “deterioration” of the consideration in his or her possession.”
Kim Young contracted as a minor with a friend to lease an apartment from Weaver. The two stayed in the apartment and paid rent for three months. Young moved out near the end of November and returned to live with her parents. Young had a dog that caused damage to the apartment in the amount of $270. Y oung did not pay for this damage before vacating the apartment. Weaver managed to rent the apartment to someone else several months later. Weaver filed a claim against Young in Small Claims, seeking damages for the unpaid rent and the damage done by Young’s dog. The court ruled in favor of Weaver and awarded $1,370 in damages. Young appealed the decision to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, which tried the case and also entered a judgment in favor Weaver and awarded him $1,095. Young appealed. Court: “Alabama law, like the law of most other states, provides that persons providing “necessaries” of life to minors may recover the reasonable value of such necessaries irrespective of the existence, or nonexistence, of a voidable contract respecting those necessaries. …Determining whether the subject of a contract is a necessity to a minor entails a two-step analysis…[generally considered a necessity and a necessity to that minor]. …Young’s parents were willing and able to provide lodging for their daughter at the time she rented the apartment from Weaver. Given the authorities cited above and the particular facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court erred in its determination that the apartment in question was a necessity for Young. Therefore, as a minor, Young is not legally bound under the lease agreement. Reversed and remanded in favor of Young. ”
The test for mental capacity is a cognitive test. The traditional test has been criticized as unscientific because it does not take into account the fact that a person suffering from a mental illness or defect might be unable to control his conduct. Section 15 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides that a person’s contracts are voidable if he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction and the other party has reason to know of his condition. Where the other party has reason to know of the condition of the mentally impaired person, the Restatement (Second) standard would provide protection to people who understood the transaction but, because of some mental defect or illness, were unable to exercise appropriate judgment or to control their conduct effectively.
Contract law makes a distinction between a contract involving a person who has been adjudicated (judged by a court) incompetent at the time the contract was made and a contract involving a person who was suffering from some mental impairment at the time the contract was entered but whose incompetency was not established until after the contract was formed. If a person is under guardianship at the time the contract is formed—that is, if a court has found a person mentally incompetent after holding a hearing on his mental competency and has appointed a guardian for him—the contract is considered void and not merely voidable. See Kenai Chrysler v. Denison.
The hyperlink is to the case opinion in pdf. Alan Rogers was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and dementia in 2003. Soon after, Alan’s son, Jason, sought an adjudication that Alan was incapacitated. An order to that effect was entered in 2004. The letters appointing Jason as guardian and conservator for his father did not place any limitations on Jason’s powers. On May 15, 2007, Jason helped his father complete and submit an online application for life insurance offered by Household Life Insurance Company (HLIC). HLIC approved the application, the initial $447.20 premium was paid, and Alan Rogers’ term life insurance policy with a face value of $250,000 took effect. Jason was the sole beneficiary of the policy. Alan passed away on June 7, 2007. His death certificate lists the sole cause of his death as “dementia of the Alzheimer’s type.” Jason submitted a notice of claim to HLIC and HLIC refused to perform.
False. Capacity is the ability to incur legal obligations and acquire legal rights . False. Ratification occurs when a person who reaches majority indicates that he/she intends to be bound by a contract made while still a minor True.
False. The right ends within a “reasonable” time after the minor achieves the age of majority. False. Intoxicated persons may disaffirm a contract only when it is so extreme that the person is unable to understand the nature of the bargaining process. False. Once the person regains capacity, she/he may ratify the contract.