Story Case

Fred Christopher, an infant twenty years old, made a contract with Simon Johnson to purchase six horses to be delivered two months later. One month after this contract was made, Johnson inquired of Christopher concerning certain details of the contract. Christopher answered by letter stating how he would pay the purchase price and also gave certain instructions concerning the care of the horses. When this letter was written Christopher had reached his twenty-first birthday. When the time came for delivering the horses and paying for them, circumstances had changed so that Christopher refused to take the horses. He gave as his reason the fact that he was an infant when the contract was made. Johnson, however, maintained that Christopher had ratified the contract after he reached his majority by writing the letter. In the subsequent action Christopher gave, as a further defense, the fact that he did not know that he had any right to avoid the contract when the letter was written, and that the letter was on this account of no effect. Is this true?

Ruling Court Case. Morse Vs. Wheeler, Volume 4 Allen's Massachusetts Reports, Page 570

During his infancy the defendant purchased cattle of the plaintiff for which he promised to pay. Having failed to pay for them during minority he renewed his promise to pay after reaching his majority. This action was then brought by the plaintiff for the price agreed upon. The defendant contended that he was a minor when the sale was made, and the sale was therefore not binding on him. The plaintiff's reply to this was that after reaching his majority the defendant had affirmed the contract by making a new promise to pay. The defendant, however, claimed that his new promise imposed no obligation upon him because, at the time he made it, he was ignorant of the fact that the contract, as originally made, was not binding on him.

Decision: The Court was of opinion that his lack of knowledge as to his previous liability was immaterial. His new promise was a ratification regardless of this knowledge or lack of knowledge, and it was therefore held that the contract was binding on the defendant.

The plaintiff could recover of the defendant the price agreed upon for the cattle.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The law arbitrarily fixes twenty-one years as the age at which an infant is supposed to be able to take care of himself. All contracts made up until that time are voidable. From then on the law removes its protecting arm. If an infant makes a contract one day after reaching that age, however bad the contract may be, the law no longer affords him any protection. If he affirms a contract which was made during his minority, it then becomes binding upon him. This consequence is not affected by the fact that the infant was at that time unaware that the contract was voidable. He has come to years of discretion and his acts and contracts are binding whether they consist in new acts and contracts, or whether they are merely the affirmation of acts and contracts made during the period of non-age.

In the Story Case, the act of Christopher in writing the letter amounted to an affirmance, and this is true although he was ignorant of his right, prior to that time, to disaffirm the contract.