The general law holds that minors cannot enter into legal contracts. The law clearly defines a minor as any person under the age of 18 years. According to English law, any contract between a minor and an adult is binding on the adult but not on the minor. However, the law allows a minor to enter into contracts for the supply of necessities if no adult can provide the necessities. In this regard, a minor can disaffirm a contract at any time without being legally responsible (O’Sullivan and Jonathan 18).
According to the British Columbia Infants Act, all contracts entered by a minor are unenforceable against the minor except for few contracts defined by the Act. However, the minors can ratify the contracts after reaching the age of maturity. The Minors Contract Act 1987 and Infants Relief Act 1874 also regulate the contracts that minors can engage in (O’Sullivan and Jonathan 20).
Asad is just sixteen years old and a minor under English law. He is, therefore, not legally bound by the apprenticeship offered by Abdul. The fact that Abdul has in the past offered the same apprenticeships does not ratify his current agreement with Asad. The law allows Asad to disaffirm the agreement at any time with no legal liability. On the same note, clause C in the agreement expressly states that the agreement can be terminated at any time.
A standard format contract is usually drafted by one party and is not open for negotiation. In other words, it is a contract that should be accepted the way it is. The contract has several advantages. Firstly, standard format contact eliminates the legal fee that is required when an attorney is asked to draft a new contract each time. As a result, it is cheaper to use standard format contracts compared to other types of contracts (O’Sullivan and Jonathan 39). On the same note, usually, negotiation consumes a lot of time because both parties will want their terms to carry the day. However, the standard format contract does not require any negotiation to take place. Therefore, it saves time, avoids legal complexities, and expedites the execution of the contract. Furthermore, having used the standard contract on many occasions, the parties involved finding it easy to use thus enhancing the speed of execution (O’Sullivan and Jonathan 41).
However, it should be noted that standard contracts have a host of disadvantages associated with them. To begin with, standard contracts usually tend fixing the prices of commodities. In many standard contracts, everything is supposed to be taken as it is written. Therefore, negotiation is not part of the process and one cannot be able to ask for fair prices. Moreover, the prices quoted are sometimes higher than average market prices. Secondly, the law uses language is rather a different way thus giving words different meanings. Therefore, different words used in a standard contract can be subject to different interpretations which can be unfavorable to the other party (O’Sullivan and Jonathan 43). As result, by accepting the use of standardized contracts, people usually find that they are legally obliged to do some activities against their consent.
On the same note, companies that draft standard contracts usually do it so that they can take care of their interests. In this regard, the contracts favor one party at the expense of the other. Similarly, like every contract, standard contracts usually have several conditions set out. Unfortunately, most people do not read these conditions taking them as too many (O’Sullivan and Jonathan 44). These conditions are known to leave out some crucial information that can exonerate the drafting company from legal liability in case of any mistakes.
Works Cited
O’Sullivan, Janet and Jonathan Hilliard. The Law of Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.