Gastonia v. rogers GROUP 4 Hannah, Jon, Liz, Recha, Osman, Jordon & Eli

Contractual capacity Please turn to Chapter 14. Page 274. Question 20 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?

Factual Overview 1966 June 6, 1968 Date May 29, 1968 Date Date Spratt-Seaver Inc. hired Rogers through Gastonia Personnel Corp. Rogers Graduated from high school Two self-made unsuccessful interviews Lower Court judgment in favor of defendant - reversed 1966 June 6, 1968 Date May 29, 1968 Date Date Gastonia files a claim against Rogers for the sum of $295 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 Judgment in favor of Plaintiff

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

Q & A What is… A minor? Pro tanto? Disaffirmance? confirmation An infant, is a person who has not attained the age of legal majority. Pro tanto? Latin word for only to that extent Q & A Disaffirmance? Release the minor from any liability on the contract confirmation The act of confirmation

EMPLOYMENT FOUND THROUGH Facts June 6, 1968 Spratt-Seaver Inc. hired Rogers through Gastonia Personnel Corp. EMPLOYMENT FOUND THROUGH Gastonia Rogers CONTRACT 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. None

Issues 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 ($250) Common law Classified and referred to as infants until they attain the age of 21 years

Legal Concept Date Liability on contracts Gastonia files a claim against Rogers for the sum of $295 Minor: @ 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 ratifying a contract after reaching the age of majority. Liability for necessaries @ 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.

Has to pay for his necessities that supply needs above his own. Legal Concept Date Gastonia files a claim against Rogers for the sum of $295 In our case… Rogers is an emancipated minor who is married and going to have a child 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. Plaintiff Court Defendant

Implication What if? Plaintiff (Gastonia) Defendant (Rogers) 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

Consequences Need: Case consequences of Gastonia V Rogers Date Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Need: Case consequences of Gastonia V Rogers Case consequences of SIMILAR CASES

Points of view PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT POLITICAL MORAL ECONOMIC 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 to which he does not honestly consent to. 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 could forgo the fees from infants as a duty of good will and receive consideration through PR press. Plaintiff Defendant PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT POLITICAL MORAL ECONOMIC