On May 7, Roy, a minor, a resident of Smithton, purchased an automobile from Royal Motors, Inc., for $18,750 in cash.

Category:

On May 7, Roy, a minor, a resident of Smithton, purchased an automobile from Royal Motors, Inc., for $18,750 in cash.

0
0

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

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

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

Roy’s action against Marks?

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Part A

Explanation

As long as the car is not considered a necessity, Individual R is not liable to pay for anything related to the car to Company RM. Individual R can disaffirm from the case as they are a minor. Company RM has accepted the used vehicle from Individual R, leading to the disaffirmation of the case.
 
If Company RM had not accepted the vehicle, they could have asked for a reasonable value in return for the use of the vehicle by Individual R. Since that did not happen, Company RM cannot ask for anything else from Individual R as Individual R has already returned the vehicle. Company RM may ask recovery for the depreciation caused to the vehicle, if possible.

Verified Answer

Individual R can disaffirm from the case and avoid any further payment of reasonable value to Company RM, if the company allows Individual R to not to pay any amount related to the car.
 
The acceptance of the vehicle from Individual R implies that Individual M has accepted disaffirmation. company rm may receive value for the depreciation caused by Individual R if the law of the state allows.

 
 
 
 
Part B

Explanation

Both Individual R and Individual M are minors. It enables Individual R to make the case voidable even though the contract has already been executed. Individual M can use their right of disaffirmation here, but as Individual R is also a minor, Individual M cannot stop Individual R from exercising their privileges and rights against Individual M.

Verified Answer

Individual R can consider the executed contract with Individual M voidable since Individual R and Individual M are both minors. Even though Individual M is also a minor and can disaffirm from the case, it does not mean that they have immunity against the assertion that Individual R can make.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.


Get Help With Your Assignments

Place your order now and get a quality plagiarism-free paper via email.

Write My Paper For Me