In general terms, if the parties agree to the contracts terms, it is a must for them to fulfill their end of it. But when dealing with minors and contracts things do vary. Most states consider people who are under the age of 18 years as minors. In trying to protect minors from contracts that are un-fair minors can choose void to end the contracts via disaffirming. In most cases, though disaffirming protects the minor, adults in such contracts get short end of the stick. This paper discusses the liabilities of Kellen, a minor who breached a contract with the landlord.
Kellen being the minor has the option of either performing the contract or avoiding it. Just because Kellen decided not to continue with the contract, Kellen has to return all the properties of the landlord including the keys as an aspect of disaffirming contracts, (Richard, 2003).This is called Aspect of Restoration. Whether anything to the fact, the minor is liable to return the items or make payment for any goods that Kellen damaged in the house, (Richard, 2003).
Though Kelen can avoid many contracts, but there are some which Kellen can't disaffirm. These are contracts that provide necessary goods and services to the health and safety of Kelen. Such goods and services might include clothing, food, and shelter and in some circumstances automobiles. Such contracts by minors bind on both parties involved. Necessity is determined by the reference to the existing life style and has to be necessary for maintenance of that lifestyle, (LaMance, 2010).By considering the case of Kellen, it is observed that though Kelen is a minor but the apartment rented is necessary for Kelen as it provides shelter which is categorized under necessary goods. Also considering the distance from the University to Kelen's home, which is 200 miles, makes the condition very necessary for the lifestyle of many common minors including Kelen.
In conclusion, Kelen is liable for the balance of the payments due under the lease as the contract was necessary for the well being of Kelen.