Please turn to Chapter 14. Page 274. Question 20 o Rogers was a nineteen-year-old (the age of majority then being twenty- one) high school graduate pursuing a civil engineering degree when he learned that his wife was expecting a child. As a result, he quit school and sought assistance from Gastonia Personnel Corporation in finding a job. Rogers signed a contract with the employment agency providing that he would pay the agency a service charge if it obtained suitable employment for him. The employment agency found him such a job, but Rogers refused to pay the service charge, asserting that he was a minor when he signed the contract. Gastonia sued to recover the agreed-upon service charge from Rogers. Should Rogers be liable under his contract? If so, for how much?

Rogers Graduated from high school 1966 May 29, 1968 Rogers 19 years old – INFANT under law Legally emancipated Married with unborn child Sought employment assistance through Gastonia Personnel Corp. Signed service contract: Fee of $295 Two self-made unsuccessful interviews Spratt-Seaver Inc. hired Rogers through Gastonia Personnel Corp. June 6, 1968 Gastonia files a claim against Rogers for the sum of $295 Lower Court judgment in favor of defendant - reversed Judgment in favor of Plaintiff

Minor Known as an infant, is a person who has not attained the age of legal majority Disaffirmance Release the minor from any liability on the contract Ratification Confirm a contract

An infant, is a person who has not attained the age of legal majority. Latin word for only to that extent Release the minor from any liability on the contract The act of confirming

Spratt-Seaver Inc. hired Rogers through Gastonia Personnel Corp. Gastonia EMPLOYMENT FOUND THROUGH Any offer initiated by an employer as a result of Gastonia Personnel Corp. at any time within 12 months of the lead Rogers will be obligated to pay a flat rate of $295. Rogers CONTRACT None June 6, 1968

Rogers: 19 years old: Infant under the law Married and Emancipated Married: Has to pay for “necessities” for his wife and child Emancipated: Has ability to pay the service charge ($295) Common law Classified and referred to as infants until they attain the age of 21 years Is Rogers of legal capacity in his age? MAIN ISSUE

► What is Roger’s current profile info? ► He is 19, married and emancipated. ► What charge will Rogers have to pay if he finds a job on his own? ► Rogers does not have to pay anything. Gastonia and Rogers agreed that if Rogers found a job on his own, he would not have to pay any service fee.

Government emancipation could be a massive issue country wide. Infants could all apply for emancipation and sign whichever contracts they wanted, and plead legal infancy and disregard anything they have been previously bound to. Rogers should be forced to pay the fee to which he contractually agreed to although he is an “infant” by legal standards. He signed a contract as a legally emancipated individual. BUT, he is still a young adult with the pressures of a newly married wife and child on the way, which could force him to agree to a contract under economic duress. If all unemployed emancipated infants decided to apply for career positions through Gastonia Personnel Corp. and refused to pay their duties, there would be economic losses. Gastonia would not receive pay for the services they perform. BUT, being a financially fiscal company they could forgo the fees from infants as a duty of good will and receive consideration through PR press. Gastonia’s point of view is that they provided a service to Rogers and he must pay the fee of $295 regardless of his individual emancipation or financial issues. He is a legally separated adult who determines his own decisions and benefits from the work provided by the staff of Gastonia in obtaining him a secure employment position at Spratt-Seaver Inc. Rogers is under economic pressures of supporting a wife and coming child and is under no choice but to apply for employment through Gastonia Personnel Corp. because he is unable to find a job on his own. He believes although he is legally emancipated he is still an infant and Gastonia should resolve the debt of $295 because he has necessities above and beyond himself. POLITICAL ECONOMIC PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT MORAL

Common Law Minor was an individual who had not reached the age of 21 However, today the age of majority is changed to age eighteen  contracts is voidable at his guardian’s option. Emancipated minor no longer under parental control and may or may not avoid contractual liability. Liability on contracts A minor may disaffirm a contract at any time before reaching the age of majority. A minor has the option to ratify a contract after reaching the age of majority. Liability for Common Law: Minor has to pay for his necessities that suitably and reasonably supply his personal needs. However, the minor is not contractually liable for the agreed price but for the reasonable value of the items furnished. Gastonia files a claim against Rogers for the sum of $295

No longer under parental control but still may avoid contractual liability in most jurisdictions. Has to pay for his necessities that supply needs above his own. To determine if Rogers could relinquish the $295, pay in full or pay a partial sum. In our case… Rogers is an emancipated minor who is married and going to have a child Gastonia files a claim against Rogers for the sum of $295 Plaintiff Defendant Court

 Necessities  Subsistence and Health  Food  Lodging  Clothing  Medicine  Medical services Gastonia files a claim against Rogers for the sum of $295

► At what age is someone considered a minor (during the time of this court case)? ► Anyone below the age of 21. ► What are “necessities”? ► Subsistence and health along with services that a minor needs to earn the money required to provide the necessities of life for himself and his dependents.

What we can conclude: o The defendant had the capacity to understand that he needed a job and the plaintiff offered an opportunity to him. Therefore, the plaintiff managed to provide sufficient evidence they did in fact provide employment to the defendant. Thus, the service charge of $ should be enforced. Gastonia v. Rogers Indiana Law Journal (1965) o “Society has a moral obligation to protect the interests of infants from overreaching adults. But this protection must not become a straightjacket” o “Nor should infants be allowed to turn that protective legal shield into a weapon to wield against fair- dealing adults” o “If this can be accomplished consistently with the protection of those persons unable to protect themselves in the market place” o “Rights and liabilities of an infant partner – Since the ancient common law, infants have been regarded as wards of the court, and their interests watched and their rights protected with jealous care. That they might not be the prey of scheming men nor of their own indiscretion, their ability to convey their property or contract away their volition” Columbia Law Review

In Freeman v Bridger the infant Freeman purchased timber to construct a home for himself and attempted to elude his contract. Cecil Jr. passed away with a will in testament. Infant Jonathan - his legal son was the full inheritor. His mother met with attorney Zelnick to file suit for immediate distribution of the money. Zelnick charged 1/3 of the normal contingency fee on behalf of Jonathan. In Collins v. Norfleet-Baggs a infant plaintiff destroyed a traded Dodge Sport Roadster in a wreck. The defendant previously traded a Chevrolet truck for the Dodge Sport Roadster. Zelnick v AdamsFreeman v BridgerCollins v Norfleet-Baggs Is there legal capacity in their age? Related Cases & Relevance

The court concluded the timber was not a necessity for Freeman. Therefore, he is liable to pay the fee. If he was married with a child and had to provide necessaries such as food and clothes, he would not. On his behalf after infancy, Jonathan’s blood father filed suit against Zelnick to recover the fee paid. At age 21 Jonathan would have rightfully inherited the funds without suit. The contract was voided. Due to infancy the plaintiff recovered the fair market value of the traded Chevrolet truck and the purchase price of the destroyed Dodge Sport Roadster. Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Freeman v BridgerZelnick v AdamsCollins v Norfleet-Baggs Gastonia v. Rogers A “necessary” for an infant does not include the service of a professional employment agency; however… According to the Supreme Court, Rogers is liable to pay for the service charge fee since it is required to get one’s necessities. The contract is enforceable.

What if? Plaintiff (Gastonia) Showed evidence the contract was an appropriate and reasonable means for defendant to obtain suitable employment Refused service to Rogers because of infancy or made contract based upon knowledge of infancy Defendant (Rogers) Brought evidence of emancipation when applying for employment to prove his abilities to provide quality work

Minor Contractual Capacity Common Law Liability for Necessities Liability on Contracts How is Gastonia v Rogers related to Business Law?

 s&hl=en&as_sdt= &as_vis=1 s&hl=en&as_sdt= &as_vis=1   ms&hl=en&as_sdt= &as_vis=1 ms&hl=en&as_sdt= &as_vis=1 