Quiz 11: Capacity and Legality

Business

Doctrine of necessity: It states that it is the right of a person to recover the expenses incurred by him in maintaining the minor for the minor's benefit. Such expenses can be recovered from the minor's estate. Thus, minors are obliged to pay for the necessaries of life that they contract for. Items such as food, clothing, shelter and medical services are considered to be necessities. Case law: The minor H was shot in the head and required extensive life saving medical services. Requisite services were rendered by the person Y to him. The doctor filed a suit against the mother to recover the amount of services. However, he failed to recover the amount, as she was insolvent. The mother sued the person who shot the minor and recovered the amount from the culprit. Conclusion: Considering the above provisions of the given case, it can be concluded that the doctor who has provided the medical services to the minor shall be entitled to recover his expenses from the minor's estate. As the medical services have been covered under the definition of necessity the doctor has the legal right to recover such expenses. Moreover, the services have been provided to a minor in case of emergency for the minor's benefit. The defense of necessity is available only when the defendant is able to justify his unlawful acts. The welfare of the people is supreme law, but no person shall be allowed to take undue advantage of such law. .

Doctrine of infancy: According to the doctrine of infancy if a minor does not cancel the agreement either during the age of minority or within a sensible time after reaching the age of majority the agreement is considered to be ratified. Thus the minor who becomes an adult shall be bound by the contract and he has lost all his rights to confirm the contract. But any attempt by the minor to ratify the contract, while he is a still a minor can be disaffirmed just as the original agreement can be disaffirmed. Case law: A minor named J signed a contract with a company F who provided recreational sports facilities like sky-diving. After 1 month he attained the age of majority. After ten months he went for a sky diving and unfortunately the plane crashed and he had some personal injuries. The person J filed a suit against the aviation company but the court granted judgment in four of the aviation company. Conclusion: In the given case, the minor W did not disaffirm the contract he has signed with F sport aviation within a reasonable time after attaining majority neither he did any act to disaffirm the contract at the time of minority. Thus, it will be concluded that the minor W has confirmed the contract by expressing his consent through ratification as he neither at the time of minority cancelled the contract nor at the time of majority. Not disaffirming the contract within a reasonable time after attaining majority, shall be considered to be accepted by the minor. Reasonable time shall depend upon the nature and extent of contract.

Contracts that have been contracted by intoxicated individuals can be voided by them if it was entered into when they were unable to comprehend the transaction. In the present case Ms B was an alcoholic and she entered in to the contract in a state of intoxication. This can be deduced from the fact that Mr H in her absence stated that she has lucid intervals. Later she was declared incompetent to deal with her affairs. Her guardian was correct in suing Mr H for voiding the settlement agreement. Ms B must be returned to her the status quo prior to the agreement.

Related Quizzes