The defendants argue that Robertson, even as a minor, cannot rescind the contract as it was for a necessary item. Are they correct? Explain.

Jump to Solution
Category:

The defendants argue that Robertson, even as a minor, cannot rescind the contract as it was for a necessary item. Are they correct? Explain.

0
0

L. D. Robertson bought a pickup truck from King and Julian, doing business as the Julian Pontiac Company. Robertson, at the time of purchase, was seventeen years old, living at home with his parents and driving his father’s truck around the county to different construction jobs. According to the sales contract, he traded in a passenger car for the truck and was given $2,723 credit toward the truck’s $6,743 purchase price, agreeing to pay the remainder in monthly installments. After he paid the first month’s installment, the truck caught fire and was rendered useless. The insurance agent, upon finding that Robertson was a minor, refused to deal with him. Consequently, Robertson sued to exercise his right as a minor to rescind the contract and to recover the purchase price he had already paid ($2,723 credit for the car plus the one month’s installment). The defendants argue that Robertson, even as a minor, cannot rescind the contract as it was for a necessary item. Are they correct? Explain.

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

Individual R, who is a minor, can avoid the liability with the disaffirmance of the contract before the age of maturity. Individual R is only entitled to receive the car, which was traded in the place of a truck, since the contract to buy truck is revoked.
The truck is bought with an exchanged car. This proves that the automobile is used for personal transport, which is not a necessity. Only automobiles used for business are considered to be necessary. Here, the truck may not be a necessary vehicle.

Verified Answer

Individual R is going to win the case. Individual R can revoke the contract. The reason for the purchase of the truck by Individual R is not clear; it is not clear whether the truck is going to be used by Individual R for construction jobs only.
As the contract is rescinded by Individual R, Individual R can recover the passenger car, which was given. The contract is void. So, the parties to the contract need not fulfill their promises. The seller has the liability to provide the car or cash-equivalent market value back.

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.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.