In article <d9f6hv0e5lc9jfmht77p51seesq5uivmep@4ax.com>,
Christopher Green <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
All very reasonable of you, but none of it changes the voidability of
the contract. Whether you think it's fair or not doesn't enter into
it. Whether you think they're reasonable or stupid doesn't enter into
it. You can't enforce a contract with a minor who wants to rescind,
and the other arguments are red herrings.
Arizona does not follow the rule that says a minor can use his age
to take advantage of an adult.
One could read the original poster's complaint to say that the boy got
a good, fair deal on an ATV, abused it, and then decided he didn't want
it. Now he's demanding a full refund for the property that is worth
less because of his use and abuse.
We had a discussion here about a similar situation a few years ago.
The case cited back then was Dodson v. Shrader, 824 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn.
1992). A boy bought a truck and sued for a full refund after he broke
it. The court said that's not right. The boy is entitled to a refund
of the value of the wreck, not the original vehicle. The Tennessee
court cited Arizona law and the rule in Arizona seems to be similar.
(Worman v. Hill, 94 P.2d 865 (Ariz. 1939); Valencia v. White 654 P.2d
287 (Ariz. App. 1982))
--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
