Also known as: infancy defence · defense of infancy · defence of infancy · infant defense · minority defense
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A doctrine allowing a minor to avoid contractual obligations by disaffirming the agreement. The rule protects individuals under the age of majority from their own immaturity and from overreaching by adults. Disaffirmance renders the contract voidable at the minor's election, subject to limited exceptions such as contracts for necessaries.
A doctrine allowing a minor to avoid contractual obligations by disaffirming the agreement. The rule protects individuals under the age of majority from their own immaturity and from overreaching by adults. Disaffirmance renders the contract voidable at the minor's election, subject to limited exceptions such as contracts for necessaries.
Imani Idowu, age sixteen, signed a retail installment contract with Imperial Motors to buy a used sports car and falsely stated she was eighteen. After an accident damaged the vehicle she notified the dealer of her true age and demanded to rescind the agreement and recover her payments. Because she remained a minor at contracting, her timely disaffirmance prevents enforcement of the installment obligation.
A defense barring criminal liability for children below a specified age based on their physical age at the time of the offense. At common law children under seven lack capacity conclusively, those between seven and fourteen are rebuttably presumed incapable, and those fourteen and older are treated as adults.
1 common questions
Physical age at the time of the alleged offense controls. Mental age and age at trial are irrelevant under the common-law formulation.
A defense barring criminal liability for children below a specified age based on their physical age at the time of the offense. At common law children under seven lack capacity conclusively, those between seven and fourteen are rebuttably presumed incapable, and those fourteen and older are treated as adults.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Ira Irving, age seventeen, opened a margin trading account with Inertia Dynamics by checking an electronic box affirming he was over eighteen. After incurring substantial losses he refused payment and asserted his minority. His status as a minor at the time of the electronic agreement allows him to disaffirm and avoid liability for the debit balance.
Mildred R. Smith commenced this equity action in her own behalf and as next friend of her husband Ralph Smith, a minor, against Lynn R. Wade and Naomi Wade. The plaintiffs sought to have declared null and void a real estate mortgage dated July 9, 1956, for $3,256.23 on described property in Keith County, Nebraska, together with any promissory notes or indebtedness secured by it. The plaintiffs alleged that Ralph Smith was under the age of 21 years when the mortgage was signed, that the mortgaged real estate was their homestead, that the mortgage was procured by threats and duress, and that it was without valid consideration. They further claimed that the mortgage was repudiated by Ralph Smith. The defendants answered by admitting execution of the mortgage and pleading that seven notes were executed along with it for the total amount. They alleged that $794.62 represented necessaries of life furnished by Lynn R. Wade to the plaintiffs, that part of the amount was procured by fraud of Ralph Smith, and that the real estate was owned solely by Mildred R. Smith. The defendants also filed a cross-petition for declaratory judgment on the validity of the instruments. After trial the district court rendered a decree finding Ralph Smith to be a minor and that part of the amount was for necessaries of life. The court upheld the notes and real estate mortgage as valid and enforceable according to their terms against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' motion for new trial was overruled, and they appealed to the Supreme Court of Nebraska. The account underlying the notes consisted of charges for merchandise sold in the retail motor fuels business, amounts from the cash register, shortages in station merchandise, checks which did not clear, and the sale price of an automobile for $750 that had been returned to the defendants. None of the items was identified as necessaries for the plaintiffs. The record contained evidence both supporting and contradicting the claim that the notes and mortgage were procured by duress, and the mortgaged property was the homestead of the plaintiffs.
View case4 common questions
No. At common law the minor's power to disaffirm exists even when the minor lied about age to induce the transaction. The protection belongs to the minor alone and is not lost by the misrepresentation.
No. The defense is preserved if the minor disaffirms while still under the age of majority or within a reasonable time after reaching majority. Assertion when the adult party first seeks enforcement is timely.
No. The rule applies a bright-line age test and does not turn on case-by-case assessments of the minor's maturity, participation in negotiations, or apparent understanding of the terms.
No. The power to disaffirm belongs exclusively to the minor. The adult counterparty has no corresponding right to avoid the agreement on grounds of the other party's minority.
…R. Smith. They further alleged that since $794.62 of the amount involved represented necessaries of life for the plaintiffs the defense of infancy was not available, and that since $1,655.61 of the amount was procured by artifice, fraud, and deceit of Ralph Smith he is estopped from asserting the defense of infancy. By the answer it…