Harvey v. Hadfield - 13 Utah 2d 258, 372 P.2d 985 (Sup.Ct. 1962)

Rule:

Since time immemorial courts have quite generally recognized the justice and propriety of refusing to enforce contracts against minors, except for necessities. It is fair to assume that because of their immaturity they may lack the judgment, experience, and will power which they should have to bind themselves to what may turn out to be burdensome and long-lasting obligations. Consequently courts are properly solicitous of their rights and afford them protection from being taken advantage of by designing persons, and from their own imprudent acts, by allowing them to disaffirm contracts entered into during minority which upon more mature reflection they conclude are undesirable. Justice requires that minors have such protection. It is the responsibility of the courts to so safeguard their rights until they have attained their majority and thus presumably have the maturity of judgment necessary to deal with opposing parties on equal terms so that it is fair and equitable to bind them by their acts. Accordingly, adults dealing with minors must be deemed to do so in an awareness of the privilege the law affords the minor of disaffirming his contracts.

Facts:

Plaintiff, a minor purchaser, wanted to buy a trailer from the seller. The seller told the purchaser that due to his age, he would have to get his father's signature for financing. After the purchaser gave the seller a downpayment, the bank refused to accept his application for a loan. The purchaser then asked the seller for a refund. The seller refused to return the money, but signed a statement, which released the trailer for sale and granted the purchaser a credit on a trailer. The purchaser's attorney sent a letter to the seller disaffirming the contract and demanding a refund. The seller refused to refund the money, contending that he could reasonably regard the purchaser "as engaged in business as an adult.” The purchaser instituted an action, through his guardian ad litem, to recover money from the seller. The trial court ruled in favor of the seller. The purchaser appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the plaintiff minor purchaser entitled to recover the money from the seller? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court held that the purchaser was entitled to a refund because he had disaffirmed the contract. The court rejected the seller's contention that he could reasonably regard the purchaser "as engaged in business as an adult." The court ruled that § 15-2-3, U.C.A. 1953, which precluded disaffirmance if a minor was engaged in business as an adult and the other party had good reason to believe the minor was capable of contracting, did not apply. The court reasoned that § 15-2-3 did not protect one who contracted with a minor with full knowledge of his non-age.