Story Case

Clyde Mason, a young man of nineteen years, had a considerable amount of money which he wished to invest in real estate. He went to Charley Tatum, who owned a very fine farm, and offered him $10,000 for his estate. Tatum was willing to sell his farm, and they immediately entered into a written contract by which Clyde Mason purchased the farm for the sum of $10,000. By their agreement the deed was to be delivered and the purchase money paid thirty days later. About fifteen days later, the Illinois Railroad Company decided to build a railroad through that section of the country: This decision on the part of the company almost doubled the value of the farm in question. When the time came for delivery of the deed, Tatum refused to carry out his part of the contract. Clyde Mason brought a bill for specific performance of his contract; that is, he asked the Court to compel Tatum to convey to him the title to the farm. Tatum contended that a contract with an infant is absolutely void and that no rights at all were created by the contract.

Should the infant be entitled to have a conveyance of the land under the facts above stated?

Ruling Court Case. Person Vs. Chase, Volume 37, Vermont Reports, Page 647; Volume 88, American Decisions, Page 630

The minor son of the plaintiff, Person, was engaged to be married to the minor daughter of the defendant, Chase. During their engagement the plaintiff's son had been very generous, and had given the defendant's daughter many valuable gifts. A short time prior to the date set for the marriage, the plaintiff's son died. This action was brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of his son, to recover these articles so given.

Decision: An absolute gift of personal property made by an infant can be revoked by himself, or by his personal representative after his death. Such a gift, however, is not void; it is only voidable; that is, the gift remains binding unless the infant, or his personal representative, decides to revoke it.

Mr. Kellogg, J. said in part: "There is a recognized distinction between those acts of an infant which are voidable, and those which are void. In William vs. Moore, 11 M & W 256, Baron Parke recognizes the indefinite use of the term 'void' and clearly defines its application to the acts and contracts of infants, saying that an infant's contracts are void, if by void is meant incapable of being enforced against him; but that if by void is meant incapable of being ratified, then they are not void. The tendency of modern decisions is to hold the acts and contracts of infants merely voidable." The infant can avoid the contract if he chooses, but the other party is bound absolutely unless he also is an infant. The infant can avoid his gifts and demand their return - His administrator can do the same - Person can recover in this case.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Because of the immaturity and inexperience of most infants, and the consequent likelihood that unfair advantage will be taken of them by their more experienced and unscrupulous elders, the policy of the law is to protect them during their minority by refusing to enforce contracts against them. If contracts of infants were absolutely void, great injustice would be worked upon infants because they would not be able to make any contracts. Therefore such contracts are binding upon infants unless they choose at the proper time to repudiate them. Such a contract is said to be a voidable contract.

In the Story Case, Tatum was claiming that the contract of the infant was absolutely void; he hoped by that contention, if sustained, to gain profit from the incapacity of the infant. But in such a case the court would hold that the contract was only voidable. The value of the land having increased, the infant would have the right to ratify the contract and take advantage of the increase. If the value had decreased in the meantime, the infant, had he wished, could have elected to repudiate the contract, and it could not have been enforced against him.

A void contract of an infant is one which has no legal force or effect whatsoever. No act, affirmation, or ratification of the infant can give it any legal force or effect. But a voidable contract is one which is binding upon the infant, leaving to him, however, the right to ratify or disaffirm as he chooses. The courts hold that an infant's contract is voidable, i. e., can be avoided by him, but that he can hold the other party unless the latter is also an infant.