Trevor Hawthorne, Age 16, Was Working At The Burger Hut

Trevor Hawthorne Age 16 Was Working At The Burger Hut When He Got I

Trevor Hawthorne (age 16), was working at the Burger Hut when he got into a conversation with Gary Witherspoon (age 47) about Gary’s 1967 Chevy Corvette. Gary stated he has had recent problems with the car and was willing to sell it "as is" for $400. Trevor, aspiring to be a mechanic, asked detailed questions about the car’s issues, which Gary answered thoroughly. Trevor then informed Gary he could pay the $400 but did not have it on him. Gary agreed to wait until next Saturday after his bowling league to receive the payment.

On the following Saturday, when Trevor intended to pay, Gary claimed he had compromised with another buyer the day prior for $5,000. Trevor considered legal action for breach of contract. Gary argued that no contract existed, or if it did, it was unenforceable due to Trevor’s minority status and Gary’s intoxication from consuming “a couple of beers” that evening.

Paper For Above instruction

Legal contracts are fundamental to enforceable agreements in commercial transactions, yet their validity depends on specific legal requirements including mutual assent, consideration, capacity, legality, and adherence to formalities. This memorandum analyzes whether Trevor and Gary formed a valid contract and evaluates the validity of Gary’s defenses based on contract law principles.

Introduction

The central question in this scenario concerns the formation of a contract between Trevor, a minor, and Gary, an adult, regarding the sale of the 1967 Chevrolet Corvette. The circumstances involve an alleged "as is" sale agreed upon during a casual conversation, with subsequent claims of breach and defenses based on capacity and intoxication. Contract law provides rules that help determine whether an enforceable agreement exists and whether any defenses raised by Gary are valid.

Analysis of Contract Formation

The elements necessary for contract formation are offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent, and capacity. The initial step involves determining whether an offer was made and accepted. Gary’s statement that he was willing to sell the car for $400 "as is" and Trevor’s inquiry into specific problems can be viewed as an offer and an invitation for acceptance. Trevor’s indication of intent to pay the $400 and his declaration that he would pay next Saturday constitute acceptance, satisfying the mutual assent requirement.

Consideration in this scenario is evident: Trevor’s promise to pay $400 in exchange for the car’s transfer. The fact that Trevor does not have the money at the moment does not invalidate the agreement, as the offer included the time for payment—i.e., Next Saturday. This aligns with principles of unilateral contracts, which can be enforceable when a promise is made in exchange for a future performance or promise.

Capacity presents the next issue. Trevor is only 16 and thus a minor. Typically, minors can enter into contracts, but such contracts are generally considered voidable at the minor’s option, especially for non-necessaries. The sale of a used vehicle like a Corvette likely classifies as a non-necessity, which would normally give the minor the right to disaffirm the contract. However, the enforceability of this depends on whether the minor has ratified or disaffirmed the contract, which is not clear from the facts.

Legal Validity of the Contract

Given the facts, there was at least an offer and acceptance, and consideration was present. Thus, a valid contract was likely formed unless disaffirmed by Trevor within the legally permissible period. Since the contract was to be completed at a future date and the car was sold to someone else, Trevor’s claim for breach hinges on whether he had an enforceable right to purchase based on the agreement.

Gary’s Claims of Unenforceability

Gary claims the contract is unenforceable because Trevor was a minor. While minors generally may disaffirm contracts, they may also choose to ratify or affirm a contract upon reaching majority. If Trevor did not explicitly disaffirm the contract upon turning 17, and if he continued to act consistent with the agreement, he might be bound.

Additionally, Gary argues that his intoxication makes the contract unenforceable. Under contract law, mere intoxication does not automatically render a contract void or voidable unless the intoxicated person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction at the time of contracting. The legal standard typically requires proof of incapacity at the time of contract formation. Since Gary was drinking the night of the alleged agreement, yet he clearly understood he was selling the car for a specific price, his intoxication likely does not provide a valid defense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a valid contract appears to have been formed between Trevor and Gary based on offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent, despite Trevor’s minor status. Gary’s defenses based on Trevor’s minority are weak unless Trevor disaffirmed the contract upon reaching majority. Moreover, Gary’s claim of intoxication as a defense is unlikely to succeed because his level of intoxication did not impair his understanding sufficiently to void or voidify the agreement. Therefore, Trevor may have a strong claim for breach of contract, and Gary’s defenses are unlikely to succeed without additional evidence of disaffirmance or incapacity.

References

• Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Farnsworth, E. A., & Rutherford, B. D. (2013). Contracts. Aspen Publishers.
• Perillo, J. M. (2017). Principles of Contract Law. West Academic Publishing.
• Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981). American Law Institute.
• Schwartz, C. (2014). The Law of Contracts. Foundation Press.
• Slawson, R. (2014). The Structure of Contract Law. Cambridge University Press.
• UCC Article 2 - Sales, Uniform Commercial Code (2012).
• Harper, F. (2016). Contract Law and the Capacity of Minors. Journal of Law & Society, 43(2), 233-250.
• Hughes, P. (2011). The Impact of Intoxication on Contract Validity. Law Quarterly Review, 127, 232-250.
• Moore, M. (2019). Minors and Contract Law: Rights and Protections. Harvard Law Review, 132, 123-150.