In all but three states, today, a minor is someone under the age of 18. One of the oldest capacity limitations is the restriction that minors cannot enter into contracts unless they are voidable (or the minor is emancipated). Because minors' contracts are voidable, this means that they have the right, until a "reasonable" time after turning 18 to disaffirm, or avoid, any contracts that were made before this time.

Students should read and consider BOTH of the following points and CHOOSE ONE side to support. Support includes WHY you believe one choice is superior to the other or merits more weight. State your opinion, research facts (make any required references at the end of your post), ask questions, etc. Do NOT simply restate the facts that have already been given to you!This topic is certainly one that will be challenging to view in the same manner, but we can agree to disagree while displaying kindness and professionalism.

Prompt: Should minors have full capacity to enter into binding, legal contracts at the age of 15? 1. Point: The infancy doctrine holds that minors are not developed enough to make fully rational decisions and do not have the capacity to enter into contracts. This doctrine is outdated and makes faulty assumptions about the minds of minors of certain ages (i.e. at least 15 years of age). . Many developmental psychologists have found that minors ages 15 and up have essentially the same rational capacity as adults. While contract law does not recognize minors as fully rational beings, some other areas of law do. For example, many state criminal codes allow minors to be considered adults when being tried for heinous crimes. Approximately 250,000 minors are tried, sentenced, or convicted as adults each year in the U.S. The law is inconsistent, therefore, in that it can assume that minors are rational adults when committing a crime, but not when entering into a contract. Another problem with the infancy doctrine is that it assumes minors will be the victims of unfair contracts and allows them the option to disaffirm at will. However, this means that contracts with minors are voidable by the minor, but not void. In other words, the minor can enforce them against the other party, but the other party cannot enforce them against the minor. In today's digital marketplace, where minors are becoming increasingly involved and may even provide content or services to an adult, the infancy doctrine gives minors an unfair advantage. One final problem with the infancy doctrine is that, given the digital marketplace we all engage with frequently, it is almost impossible to truly verify whom one is doing business with these days. An online businessperson will never truly know whether their online client is a minor or not. This creates all kinds of obvious risk for today's businesses. Bottom line...the infancy doctrine was founded on questionable assumptions and just simply no longer applies in today's world. 2. Counterpoint: The infancy doctrine is more important than ever in today's marketplace. Even though many children are far more technologically savvy than some adults, children are not immune from abusive contracts and aren't developed enough to enter into contracts. Children and teens are more impulsive and lack the experience and foresight to make certain decisions in their favor. While minors can sometimes rationalize a situation as well as an adult, that does not necessarily mean that they will make good decisions and are more likely to brazenly enter into unfair contracts without the capacity to think of the long-term consequences of doing so. Another argument against the infancy doctrine is that minors can abuse their right to disaffirmance and enter into one-sided contracts in their favor. A class example is where a minor enters into a sales contract to purchase a car, immediately wrecks the car, disaffirms the contract, and demands a refund for the car while returning the totaled vehicle. However, many courts have instituted exceptions to the infancy doctrine for situations just like this one. Often, if a minor reaps a benefit from the contract, they cannot disaffirm the contract without returning that benefit to the other party in full. In the case of the wrecked car, the minor would not be able to disaffirm the contract without returning a car to the seller that was in the same condition in which it was purchased. Those who argue against the infancy doctrine fail to understand the balance of power between corporations and minors. Over the past few decades, minors have become a class of consumer all of their own, and the digital commerce age has brought the market to minors in way that were inconceivable when the infancy doctrine was first created. Corporations utilize the inexperience and rash decision-making of minors to finely target their advertisements and sell their products. Businesses target minors because they know minors do not have the same level of education or decision-making skills as adults, thus, minors require the continued protection that the infancy doctrine provides.