Mentally Incompetent Case Summary
ISSUE (+ background facts): Joanne is 75 years old and she has been more forgetful recently. Her family thinks she may have Alzheimer's disease, but she hasn’t been diagnosed by a doctor and the court hasn’t stated that Joanne is mentally incompetent either. She went shopping one day and decided to sign a fifteen-year installment contract to purchase a grand piano because there was a sale going on that day. The piano was delivered the next day to Joanne’s house and she stated that she didn’t remember purchasing a piano and she is confused as to why the piano is being delivered.
The issue is whether the contract that Joanne signed is voidable, void or if she is liable to carry out the terms of the valid contract.
RULE: If a contract is considered …show more content…
The court has not determined that the individual is mentally incompetent. The individual doesn’t have to uphold the terms of the contract.
A contract is valid when an individual can make fully mentally competent decisions about entering into a legal contract and a court has not stated that the person is mentally incompetent to make those important legal decisions.
APPLICATION: The fact that the courts have not determined that Joanne is mentally incompetent means that the contract may be considered voidable or valid. Joanne should be evaluated in order to distinguish if she was truly mentally incompetent at the time or if she knew what she was doing when she bought the piano and then completely forgot that she did that the next day because of a mental issue. If the evaluation determined she does have a mental issue than it needs to be determined if she was aware of what she was doing when buying the piano. If it is determined that she understood what she was doing at that time, this would be considered a valid contract. If it is proven that she did not understand what she was doing when forming the contract, this contract would be voidable. Joanne would not be liable to uphold the terms within the contract. If the evaluation did not show that she is mentally incompetent, this will be a valid
The issue is whether the contract that Joanne signed is voidable, void or if she is liable to carry out the terms of the valid contract.
RULE: If a contract is considered …show more content…
The court has not determined that the individual is mentally incompetent. The individual doesn’t have to uphold the terms of the contract.
A contract is valid when an individual can make fully mentally competent decisions about entering into a legal contract and a court has not stated that the person is mentally incompetent to make those important legal decisions.
APPLICATION: The fact that the courts have not determined that Joanne is mentally incompetent means that the contract may be considered voidable or valid. Joanne should be evaluated in order to distinguish if she was truly mentally incompetent at the time or if she knew what she was doing when she bought the piano and then completely forgot that she did that the next day because of a mental issue. If the evaluation determined she does have a mental issue than it needs to be determined if she was aware of what she was doing when buying the piano. If it is determined that she understood what she was doing at that time, this would be considered a valid contract. If it is proven that she did not understand what she was doing when forming the contract, this contract would be voidable. Joanne would not be liable to uphold the terms within the contract. If the evaluation did not show that she is mentally incompetent, this will be a valid