Submit a proposed contract to a court which would remove the infant’s right to disaffirm upon a finding that the particular contract is fair. (Impractical in light of delay and expense. Establish a rebuttable presumption of incapacity to replace the strict rule. (Open invitation to litigation.) Statutory procedure that would allow a minor to petition a court for removal of the disabilities. (Minor would only have to go to court once.) Minority makes the contract voidable. (I.e. minor can choose to cancel contract, even within a reasonable time after reaching majority.) Exceptions: Minor affirms contract after reaching majority. Necessity. (Better decisions on things you actually need. Also, don’t want to deter giving necessities to a minor.) Seller could still get restitution. (Protects seller.) But not completely because he will be getting back a used good, or nothing at all in the case of services. Want to deter making contracts with a minor. Why not an objective standard with respect to how old the person really is or their capacity? Want to protect minors from their own actions. Trying to protect the actual status. In Texas not voidable if: Minor misrepresented her age Minor intended reliance by the other party The party actually relied and the reliance was justifiable Benefits to bright-line rule: ease of application, efficiency, predictability. Detriments: Huge consequences for small discrepancy on the boundary. Duress: If you enter a contract under duress you can void the contract. Reasonable resistance required. Threats of economic injury have been recognized. Legal threats do not usually count, except in extraneous circumstances. Manifestation of assent is invalid if: induced (subjective test) by improper threat (see 2RK 176) that leaves no reasonable (objective test) alternative. (2RK 175) Alaska Packers v. Domenico, 1902 (325-27) Workers contracted with employer to do work for $50, then stopped working and demanded $100 compensation. Employer’s agent changed contract to pay $100 since employer had already invested $150K in the project and needed the work done at that moment and there were no other workers. Employer then paid only $50 as originally agreed. Workers
Encourages responsibility by forcing parties to write down their agreement or risk unenforceability. For long, complicated contracts, it gives the parties a reference. For contracts for more than a year, a party gets some protection because full performance is an exception. For real estate there is some protection in partial performance. There is a lower risk of fraud associated with someone who has already relied. People often enter into surety agreements without consideration, and may not realize the legal consequences of what they are doing. Writings iterate the seriousness of such a commitment to them. Discourages breaches just because a deal is unfavorable. With written evidence, a deal is harder to deny. UCC facilitates contract formation because its SOF requirements are rather lax; the only term required is quantity. UCC isn’t too harsh because it provides exceptions for some common business situations. If the case is really that bad and the SOF would leave a party in a grossly unfair position, reliance may be applied. be enforced. Even if a contract is in writing, that doesn’t necessarily mean the parties contemplated the seriousness of their obligations (especially where the restrictions on writings are loose). When they are forced to put a contract into writing (especially with loose restrictions), the parties may not put their full agreement into the writing. This can later prevent additional terms that were agreed upon from being enforced. If people can get out of SOF through reliance, what is SOF useful for? Hostility toward SOF; want to encourage contract formation.