FACTUAL SITUATION NUMBER ONE: Jon Revolta, a minor, had hopes of becoming a grea
ID: 331709 • Letter: F
Question
FACTUAL SITUATION NUMBER ONE: Jon Revolta, a minor, had hopes of becoming a great "disco" king, so he went to a jewelry store and purchased a gold medallion necklace for $2,000. After a week of constant responses at the "disco" such as "Buzz off, Turkey", Jon decided that being a "disco" king required more than a gold medallion, and that he had wasted $2,000. Jon went to the jeweler, demanded his money back, and tendered back the necklace.
Must the jewelry store refund Jon’s money? Was a contract created when Jon purchased the medallion? Why or why not? Was a contract consummated when Jon wore the medallion to the disco? Why or why not? Is the jewelry store entitled to withhold a portion of the money as “rent” for using the medallion for a week? Why or why not?
Explanation / Answer
Yes, jewelry store must refund Jon’s money. This is mainly due to the fact that the acts of Job results in the formation of an express disaffirmance.
A disaffirmance can be seen as a manifestation which is made by any minor either implied by his actions or by expressively, of having an intention not to be governed by the contract,
No, a contract consummated when Jon wore the medallion to the disco as if the subject matter of any contract seems to be quite a depreciable asset then only a lesser time will be given to the minor but as here the medallion does not depreciate significantly thus the contract cannot be considered as an initiated one due to express disaffirmance.
Yes, the shop can withhold some of the money as a rent as the product was used by Jon
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.