1) A contract made by a minor is voidable. The minor, Frank, in other words, may avoid the legal liability under a contract. Upon reaching the age of majority, a minor may affirm the contract and therefore make it contractually binding on him. Frank can only avoid a contract during his minority status and only for a reasonable time after he reaches the age of majority.
In the case of Frank and Buford, the minor, Frank is in voidable position because he has not turned 17 yet. If voidability elected, Buford must consider Status Quo Doctrine, which measures whether the minor must return the major to status quo subsequent to the election of viodability. Assuming Frank is electing voidability since Frank did not make the payment on time. With Status Quo Doctrine analysis, Frank reasonably used the asset, but the International Harvester Hay Machine and three heavy-duty pairs of Osh-Gosh Coveralls were necessary; also they were essential tools for his job as a farmer; however, Buford breached his duty to investigate the misrepresentation of age by Frank. Thus, Buford cannot set Status quo following to Frank’s election of voidability. Buford cannot enforce Frank to follow the contract anymore.
But Buford asked Frank to bring his father as a guarantor in order to complete the contract. So Fred came in and orally made a promise that stated, “I’ll pay you if my son, Frank doesn’t – you have my word.” And Buford agreed. The amount of money involved in the contract exceeds $500, so he would be a guarantor, but Oral contract is not enforceable. Therefore, in court, Buford would lose in the Trust Law agreement because there is no guarantor contract, but he, obligee, can use Leading Object doctrine to argue that guarantor, Fred, is socially involved with Frank, obligor, and therefore to be his co-obligor. Co-obligor is responsible for the contract if obligor does not satisfy the obligation. If Buford lose even after using the Leading Object doctrine, he still can argue...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document