American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

judgment that holds that she is obligated for the reasonable value of the medical
services rendered to her infant son.
______________________
Review Question 1. The Odem decision uses the word “voidable” to describe a
contract. What exactly does that mean and what are the consequences for entering
into a voidable contract? How is “voidable” different than “void”? Consult section 7 of
the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (and a legal dictionary) in answering this
question. By the way, what exactly are “necessaries” and what is the rationale for
holding minors liable for them when they would not be liable for other purchases?
______________________
Secondary Sources
Introductory Note. The basic analysis in infancy cases is: (1) contracts of
minors are voidable; (2) if the minor disaffirms the contract, the minor is not liable
under it; but (3) where a minor has received “necessaries” under a contract, the minor
will be required to pay for the reasonable value of what was provided. While the rules
are simple in theory, they have some twists and turns in actual practice. The
selections below summarize some of the capacity complexities of which you should be
aware.
W. E. Shipley, Infant’s liability for use or depreciation of subject matter, in action
to recover purchase price upon his disaffirmance of contract to purchase goods,
12 A.L.R.3d 1174:
Where a minor disaffirming a contract for the purchase of goods seeks to
recover payments that he has made, and the seller claims the right of recouping the
amount by which the goods in question have depreciated while in the minor’s
possession, or the value of their use during that period, the courts are faced with a
troublesome choice between conflicting policies: (1) that of protecting the minor
against his own improvidence and the impositions of more mature and worldly adults,
by permitting the minor to freely avoid his contracts not for necessities, and (2) that
of doing equity to the normally innocent businessman who may otherwise be taxed
severely for the infant’s benefit.
Faced with such a choice, some courts have adopted the clear line of rigidly
enforcing the infant’s right of avoidance, holding that his obligation is at most to
return such of the property purchased as remains in his hands at the time of
disaffirmance, in the condition in which it then is, and that the seller must bear any
______________________________________________________________________________
UNIT 13: CAPACITY TO CONTRACT 243