We learned in Chapter 14 that minors have a unique power in contract law: the ability to disaffirm a contract entered into with an adult. Rather than disaffirming the contract either as a minor or within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, a minor could elect to ratify the contract upon reaching the age of majority. This means that if a minor enters into a beneficial contract, they can elect to ratify that contract as soon as they turn 18. On the other hand, if the contract turns out to be a bad deal, the minor can simply disaffirm. This one-sided power to void an otherwise properly-executed contract can result in harsh outcomes for adults who enter into contracts with minors.

Why do you suppose the common law developed this approach to contracts with minors? Do you believe that the approach still makes sense today? Why or why not? Does the common law go far enough to protect adults who bargain in good faith, treat minors fairly, and perhaps do not even know they are dealing with a minor? Think about the potential ethical issues that can arise (for example, see the Ethics in Action box on p. 448). Different states treat these issues in different ways.