how to use the IRAC method summary for this case Five-year-old Trent Woodmans parents had his birthday party at Bounce Party, which is operated by Kera LLC. Bounce Party is an indoor play area that contains inflatable play equipment. Before the party, Trents father, Jeffrey Woodman, signed a liability waiver on Trents behalf. The waiver provided that the undersigned acknowledged the risk and waived claims against Bounce Party.

The Undersigned, by his/her signature herein affixed

does acknowledge that any physical activities involve

some element of personal risk and that, accordingly,

in consideration for the undersigned waiving his/her

claim against BOUNCE PARTY, and their agents, the

undersigned will be allowed to participate in any of

the physical activities. By engaging in this activity, the

undersigned acknowledges that he/she assumes the element

of inherent risk, in consideration for being allowed

to engage in the activity, agrees to indemnify and hold

BOUNCE PARTY, and their agents, harmless from any

liability. Further, the undersigned agrees to indemnify

and hold BOUNCE PARTY, and their agents, harmless

from any and all costs incurred including, but not limited

to, actual attorneys fees that BOUNCE PARTY, and

their agents, may suffer by an action or claim brought

against it by anyone as a result of the undersigneds use

of such facility.

During the party, Trent Woodman jumped off a slide and broke his leg. Trents mother filed suit on Trents behalf. Kera filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Trents claims were barred by the liability waiver. The Woodmans filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the waiver was invalid as a matter of law. The trial court ruled that the waiver barred Trents negligence claim but not his gross negligence claim. Both parties appealed. The court of appeals reversed and held that the waiver was invalid to bar the negligence claim. Kera appealed. A parental preinjury waiver is a contract. Mr. Woodman purportedly signed the contract on behalf of his son. Consequently, Kera necessarily asserts that the contract is enforceable against Trent because Mr. Woodman had the authority to bind his son to the contract. The well-established Michigan common law rule is that a minor lacks the capacity to contract. It is undisputed that if five-year-old Trent had signed

the waiver, the defendant could not enforce the waiver against him unless Trent confirmed it after he reached the age of majority. Can a parent bind his child by contract if the child could not otherwise be bound?