For a contract to be valid, it should possess certain characteristics. The absence of any of the elements makes a contract null and void. In every contract, there have to be at least two parties who have the legal capacity to contract. Secondly, there has to be a manifestation of assent by all the parties to contract. Finally, there has to be considered that supports a legal and enforceable promise.
Legal capacity to contract
Age
Legal capacity to contract requires a person to be an adult and has mental competence. In the case of Andy Small, the age of the majority state is eighteen years. Therefore, Andy is a minor and does not have the legal capacity to contract. However, when a minor enters into a contract with an adult, the law in most states grants minors the right to avoid or disaffirm such agreements. In addition, if an agreement between a minor and an adult is fully or partially executed and the minor has transferred consideration either in form of money, property, or valuable, the minor may still disaffirm.
Also, the adult must pay the minor a cash equivalent of considerations sold. On the other hand, a minor must also return whatever consideration from received from the adult. In the case of the room, the minor should pay $800. In the second instance where he returned the car to Honest Hal, the car dealer should pay him back the down payment he had made. In the case of land, if Andy decides to revoke the contract for the sale, he must return the payment he had received for the land.
Mental incapacity
In the case of Ira, the court declared his insanity in 2006. After treatment, he was in business. This proved that he was in a sound state of mind and able to contract. Besides, the court did not appoint a guardian for him. This implies that the court decided that Ira was competent to contract after being released from the hospital. Therefore, the court is likely to rule in favor of Shirley.
A person under influence of alcohol
Daniel entered into a contract while under influence of alcohol. He could not remember that transaction. When he got sober, he consented to the contract. Therefore, the contract was binding on him. Besides, he did not revoke the contract within a reasonable time. The court is likely to rule in favor of Belinda.
Written and oral contracts
Since Moriarity expressly stated in the letter that they had an oral agreement, this is sufficient evidence to prove that they had a legally binding oral agreement. The court is likely to rule in favor of Holmes since there is evidence for an enforceable contract. In the case of Blair and Clay, the contract is legally binding. However, if one party tries to enforce the contract, it may be difficult to prove the existence of the contract. Finally, in the case of Amos and Elizabeth in as much as they are both executing their duties stipulated in the oral contract, it may not be possible to ascertain all the terms of the agreement. Therefore, Amos will be liable if Elizabeth will be able to provide evidence or a witness to their oral agreement. Amos will not be liable because there is no sufficient evidence to prove the terms of the contract.