Question

Read Case Summary 3.7 Mosher v. Benson on page 85. This case is about a 17 year old who purchased a car from an adult. The 17 year old (Mosher) asked to have the transaction reversed on the basis that he was a minor at the time of the contract.

Answer the following questions:

1. This case is from the province of Nova Scotia. How would this case likely be resolved in a British Columbia court? Answer this question by describing the relevant law in British Columbia.

2. Do you believe that a car should be considered a necessity? Why or why not? Consider what the definition of a necessity is in your answer.

Answer 1

(1)

Under the British Columbia Infants Act, this case's arrangement would be voidable even if the sides have achieved an understanding. "Kyle Mosher was just 17 when he bought Peter Benson's car type. The argument before the court was whether or not the arrangement should be put down on the basis that the complainant was a juvenile. "In this situation, as they decide to settle the dispute between Mosher and Benson, they need to return the parties to their original position. The 17-year-old kid Mosher must return the vehicle to seller Benson, and they will return the car's porches.

(2)

May we describe the issue why car should be deemed a necessity? I firmly believe a vehicle is a must in my entire life, as it allows me fast and simple to reach the destination. In the other side, in this situation I don't believe that's necessary. Under Canadian rule, 17-year-old kid Mosher is forbidden to operate the vehicle by himself and is unlikely to receive driver's licenses at all. When he is driving the vehicle without the driver's licenses, he is in a serious position and may be a police background.

PLEASE HELP ME BY LIKING THIS ANSWER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LIKE!