Question

After she was married, Sherri Mitchell, a young woman of 17 years of age, was in an automobile accident in which she was hurt enough to require medical treatment. She was later approached by an insurance agent who offered her $2,500 as a settlement. All she had to do was sign a release that would absolve the insurance company of any complaint that she might have against it in regard to the accident. She agreed to accept the $2,500 and signed a release to that effect; however, she then changed her mind and decided to void the agreement. She argued that since she was 17 at the time she signed the release, she was a minor and could therefore void the contract. Is Mitchell correct? Explain.

Answer 1

No! Mitchell is not correct in making a decision to void the contract.

As per the law, the minors (who have not attained the age of 18 years), do not have the capacity to make a contract, and can void the contract.

But if in case any minor who have signed a contract to purchase food, shelter, clothing, or any medical services, then the contract will be considered as liable for the reasonable value of those goods and services, and therefore cannot be void.

Hence, the minor (Mitchell) in this case cannot void the contract as the contract was with the insurance company of receiving settlement for medical treatment. Therefore, she is wrong in her claim of making the contract void.