Case Study: Jane V. Midtown Toyota

The issue is whether Jane can disaffirm the contract and demand that Midtown Toyota return her $3,500. The specific issue is whether Jane made a false and fraudulent misrepresentation of her age when she entered into the contract with Midtown Toyota to purchase the vehicle. The court would likely find that Jane did not fraudulently misrepresent her age. Additionally, as a minor, Jane had no duty to read the contract she entered into with Midtown Toyota. The court would likely find that Jane did not fraudulently misrepresent her age because of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract and the fact that the law imposes no duty on minors to read contracts.

A minor can be estopped from disaffirming a contract if (a) the minor made a false and fraudulent representation of his or her age; (b) the contracting party justifiably relied on the minor’s representation; and (c) the minor has reached the age of discretion. Carney v. Southland Loan Co., S.E.2d 805, 808 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955) (quoting Hood v. Duren, 125 S.E. 787 (Ga. Ct. )). In Carney, Carney, a minor, made a fraudulent
Beane, the minor, Siegelstein entered into a contract with Beane and stated that he was over the age of twenty-one so that he could open up an account and gain employment. 17 S.E. 2d 907, 909. However, Siegelstein did not read the contract that he entered into with Beane that stated he was over the age of twenty-one. Id. Siegelstein did not knowingly or intentionally perpetrate a fraud on the defendant nor did he have any malicious intent, for purposes of entering into the contract, and, therefore, he could not be estopped from setting up his infancy. Id. The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that Siegelstein lacked fraudulent intent for purposes of entering into the contract stating, “It is true that the false representation of his age on the part of the minor will not affect his power to disaffirm a contract unless it was made fraudulently.” Id. at