Question

On May 7, Roy, a minor, a resident of Smithton, purchased an automobile from Royal Motors, Inc., for $18,750 in cash. On the same day, he bought a motor scooter from Marks, also a minor, for $750 and paid him in full. On June 5, two days before attaining his majority, Roy disaffirmed the contracts and offered to return the car and the motor scooter to the respective sellers. Royal Motors and Marks each refused the offers. On June 16, Roy brought separate appropriate actions against Royal Motors and Marks to recover the purchase price of the car and the motor scooter. By agreement on July 30, Royal Motors accepted the automobile. Royal then filed a counterclaim against Roy for the reasonable rental value of the car between June 5 and July 30. The car was not damaged during this period. Royal knew that Roy lived twenty-five miles from his place of employment in Smithton and that he would probably drive the car, as he did, to provide himself transportation. Decision as to

1. Roy's action against Royal Motors, Inc., and its counterclaim against Roy; and

2. Roy's action against Marks?

Answer 1

Roy, a minor, had the right to disaffirm the contract for the purchase of the automobile, if it is a non-necessary. On the other hand, if the car is considered a necessary, Roy would be liable for the reasonable value of the automobile unless Royal allows Roy to disaffirm. Here, since Royal accepted the return of the automobile it may have forfeited its right to the reasonable value of the automobile. Thus, it would seem that whether a necessary or not, Roy has legally effected a disaffirmance. What are Roy's duties with respect to the automobile after disaffirmance? The courts do not agree on this question. The majority hold that the minor must return any property received from the other party to the contract, provided she is in possession of it at the time of disaffirmance. Other states require at least the payment of a reasonable amount for the use of the property or of the amount by which the property depreciated while in the hands of the minor.

(b) Disaffirmance.

Decision for Roy and against Marks for the return of the purchase price of the motor scooter. The general rule that the contracts of a minor are voidable at his option applies to an executed contract between two minors. To hold the rule inapplicable, the court, in Hurwitz v. Barr, D.C. App., 193 A.2d 360 said: "would convert the privilege of infancy, which the law intends as a shield to protect the minor, into a sword to be used to the possible injury of others." While Marks as a minor has the option of disaffirming the contract, this option cannot nullify any rights or privileges which Roy, also a minor, is capable of asserting. Accordingly, Marks cannot destroy Roy's right to rescind, and the contract was therefore voidable by Roy.