Question

At age 17, in a state in which the age of majority is 18, Sally purchased a prom dress from Formal Stuff. She wore it to the prom and then attempted to return it to the store claiming that she was a minor and that she was entitled to a refund. The dress had clearly been worn and had a purple stain that Sally claimed was from grape juice. Additionally, a few days before she turned 18, Sally purchased a used car from Dings and Dents used cars. She had a deal whereby she paid $100 per month on the car. She drove the car and made payments for fourteen months after she turned 18. Then, she returned the car to Dings and Dents and told them that she wanted all her money back. Dings and Dents claimed the car was a necessity. Sally and her parents claimed that the parents were ready and willing to provide a car to Sally and that she only purchased the car from Dings and Dents because she liked that particular style and color. When purchases of the dress and car were made, the sellers knew that Sally was under the age of 18. In the dispute between Sally and the owner of Dings and Dents, which of the following is true regarding any claim that Sally affirmed the contract?
a. So long as, after reaching the age of majority, Sally did not state orally or in writing that she intended to be bound by the contract, then she did not commit an express ratification.
b. Sally was required to expressly ratify the contract before she could be bound to it.
c. An implied ratification occurs when parents agree to accept the debt entered into by a minor.
d. If Sally caused any damage whatsoever to the car, she was said to have impliedly ratified the contract.
e. Sally was required to expressly ratify the contract before she could be bound to it so long as no damage was done; but if she did any damage to the car, as a matter of law, she is said to have expressly ratified it.

Answer 1

Answer:

a. So long as, after reaching the age of majority, Sally did not state orally or in writing that she intended to be bound by the contract, then she did not commit an express ratification.

Explanation:

Express ratification is a direct affirmation from a certain person that can be used to confirm a set of criteria needed to enter a certain contract/agreement.

In the case above, the sellers know that Sally was under the age of 18.

This mean that they're aware that at the time of the purchase, Sally was not legally capable to be binded by a contractual agreement. This mean that Sally can basically void all of the contract made with those sellers.

One exception exist under such circumstances.

Sellers can still make contract with underage people as long as that underage people promise to fulfill their end of the contract by the time they reach legal age.

But in the case above, Sally made none of such promise both orally or in writing. This mean she's not bounded by express ratification that legally require her to fulfill the contract she made when she's underage.