Ten months before attaining the age of 18, the plaintiff paid for and received a

Question

Ten months before attaining the age of 18, the plaintiff paid for and received a course in elementary aviation from the defendant. Five months later, he purchased and received a limited commercials pilot's course from the defendant. Two months later, he entered into a contract with the defendant for an advanced course of instruction to become a transport pilot, but he withdrew from the course within the month and paid nothing. He reached the of 18 on July 20.

Six months after his 18th birthday, he received a bill from the defendant for the balance due on his course. He visited the defendant's attorney and denied liability but said nothing about disaffirmance. He took no further action until a few days shy of a year from the day he attained the age of 18. At that time, he filed suit against the defendant, seeking to disaffirm his contracts for the aviation courses and seeking a return of the money he had paid for them on grounds that he had given up under the contracts. The defendant argued that the courses were necessaries and, as such, that the plaintiff was not entitled to disaffirm the contracts for them.

Were the contracts for necessaries and, as such, not subject to being disaffirmed?

Even if the plaintiff had the right to disaffirm the contracts, was almost a year too long to wait to disaffirm them?

Explanation / Answer

1. Necessaries includes those items that are necessary for the health and safety of the minors. Items like food, clothing and shelter are considered as necessaries. These items are considered necessary for subsistence, health and comfort. It also includes education. The case is related to education as the plaintiff had received a a course in elementary aviation. As per law contracts for necessaries cannot be voided. This contract is furnishing education in the filed of elementary aviation and hence cannot be disaffirmed.

Now, supposing that the plaintiff had the right to disaffirm the contracts, it would had to be done within a reasonable period of time. The law states that a contract can be disaffirmed at any point during minority or for a reasonable time after a minor crosses the age of eighteen years. In this case the plaintiff mentioned nothing about disaffirmance when the bill was given. Nothing was done from the plaintiff's side for a year. This will not be considered as a reasonable time in the court. Thus, the time period of a year will be considered as too long by the law.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.