Had Ms. B entered into the contract with an exculpatory clause, she would have disaffirm the contract later as she is a minor.
The primary requirement for contract to be enforceable is the capacity to enter into a contract. This means a contract can be questionable when dealing with minor because a minor has less capacity to understand or question about the contractual rights.
Ms. B can disaffirm a contract anytime by showing her intention not to be bound. She can file a suit against the race organizers which can indicate her intention not to be bound by the contract.
Alzheimer's is a progressive illness that has the capacity to affect parts of brain where memories, thoughts etc., are stored. The dementia which results from this illness can make the person feel lost, unable to follow directions, neglect personal safety and hygiene, ask questions repeatedly etc. It is difficult for a person having Alzheimer's to keep a track of bills that are due or any payments and difficulty in knowing whom to trust.
Capacity to contract means the legal competency that a person should possess in order to enter a valid contract and to perform some act in furtherance of the contract. The basic element being that the person be of sound mind at the time of entering into contract.
Certain class of people shall be exempted from entering into any contract, they are:
• Insane/ lunatics
• People under the influence of drugs
• People who are bankrupt, and
• Enemy aliens.
Although in present case, Mrs. J was suffering from a mental disease it could be difficult to show that she was suffering from its while entering into the contract. Patients
The contract to purchase a piano is voidable because Mrs. J was not previously judged by a court or diagnosed by a doctor to be incompetent. She can, however, show that she was incompetent at the time of the purchase because she was not aware of the nature, purpose and consequences. Alternately, she can return the piano within the grace period.
Hence the enforceability of the contract to purchase the piano can be voided by a claim on incompetence or lack of capacity. This can be proven in court by either having a doctor state his opinion to the court or simply by the Judge's own discretion.
a) The court should no uphold the non-compete clause because it is not reasonable. The clause here offers no geographic or time limits. Because it is so overly broad, it is contrary to public policy and the court will not uphold it.
b) The company is entitled to the amount the defendant withdrew from their accounts, but they should not receive a windfall - that is more money than they lost in this particular instance. Because the defendant presumably took the money without permission for reasons not related to furthering the interests of the company, he should pay it back.
c) Most likely, the defendant's actions after leaving the company would have some effect on the court's decision. Although the court could be more lenient on the actions related to the non-compete clause, i.e. attempts to license the software, the court will take the defendants' actions of exposing trade secrets and withdrawing company funds as separate, morally questionable actions. These latter actions indicate that the defendant was attempting to injure his former employer rather than just protect his own interests regarding the non-compete clause.