What is implied by us entering a contract with a minor regarding necessaries?

What is implied by us entering a contract with a minor regarding necessaries?

• A. They can never disaffirm
• B. They must be charged market price
• C. They have limited capacity but must pay value
• D. They cannot engage in business

Answer: (C)

When entering a contract with a minor regarding necessaries, the implication is that the minor has limited capacity to contract but is still obligated to pay a reasonable value for those necessaries received. Necessaries refer to essential items such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care that a minor may need for their basic living requirements. The law recognizes that minors may not have the same level of understanding or maturity as adults, which is why they are generally given the ability to disaffirm contracts. However, for contracts involving necessaries, the legal expectation shifts slightly because society acknowledges that minors still require access to essential goods and services. Therefore, while they can disaffirm contracts as a general rule, they have a responsibility to compensate the provider for the reasonable value of the necessaries that they have received. This principle allows for a balance between protecting minors from exploitation while ensuring that those providing essential goods are not left without compensation. The other options do not accurately reflect the legal obligations or rights of minors concerning contracts for necessaries.

When entering a contract with a minor regarding necessaries, the implication is that the minor has limited capacity to contract but is still obligated to pay a reasonable value for those necessaries received. Necessaries refer to essential items such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care that a minor may need for their basic living requirements.

The law recognizes that minors may not have the same level of understanding or maturity as adults, which is why they are generally given the ability to disaffirm contracts. However, for contracts involving necessaries, the legal expectation shifts slightly because society acknowledges that minors still require access to essential goods and services. Therefore, while they can disaffirm contracts as a general rule, they have a responsibility to compensate the provider for the reasonable value of the necessaries that they have received.

This principle allows for a balance between protecting minors from exploitation while ensuring that those providing essential goods are not left without compensation. The other options do not accurately reflect the legal obligations or rights of minors concerning contracts for necessaries.