USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Directions
1. Find and read the following cases
2. Answer the following questions
POST
Hi, can you give the feed to 2 of these people:Should a person be allowed to disaffirm a contract he or she made as a minor after reaching the age of minority? Yes.There is a law that protects minors who aren’t equal in experience and allows them to withdraw from a contract even after they have surpassed the age of 18 because it was made while they were a minor. What is a reasonable length of time after reaching the age of majority to permit disaffirmance?Typically, a time for this is set and may vary under circumstances, nature of contract, current legislation, and may also vary on states. What ethical considerations are involved in these cases?Jones v. Dressel- voluntary participation, informed consentFlood v. Fidelity and Guaranteed Life Insurance Co.- demanded payment for child.Should a person be allowed to disaffirm a contract he or she made as a minor after reaching the age of minority?A minor should be able to disaffirm a contract once they come of age. A minor is not capable of entering an agreement or contract because they are considered not competent to do so. Once they reach the age of majority, they are able to ratify any contract they had, then making it a valid contract (Liuzzo).What is a reasonable length of time after reaching the age of majority to permit disaffirmance?I believe that a reasonable length of time after reaching the age of majority to disaffirm a contract should be one year. This would give enough time for the minor party to consider the contract and decide whether or not they wish to disaffirm or ratify the contract. However, each state should determine what they consider is a reasonable length of time.What ethical considerations are involved in these cases?In the Jones v. Free Flight Sport Aviation, the contract was not valid because Jones was only 17 at the time that he entered the agreement. Since he was a minor, he is not considered competent and therefore cannot enter into a valid contract. However, once he did come of age, he ratified the previous contract by continuing to participate in the activities of the business, showing that he intended to live up to the terms of the contract (Liuzzo). By doing this, he is bound by the original contract and loses his claim for injury. The ethical consideration in this case is whether Free Flight Sport Aviation should take accountability for their negligence. They failed to verify, or ignored the fact, that Jones was only 17 at the time and not competent to enter into any agreement.In the Flood v. Fidelity case, the wife fraudulently purchased life insurance in her husband’s name, and payed the premiums on the policy. She subsequently killed her husband and was convicted for his murder. However, the ethical consideration is whether or not the policy should still be paid out to the estate or minor children, even though the policy was purchased fraudulently.Works Cited:Liuzzo, Anthony. Essentials of Business Law.. [Yuzu].
