Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I see Brett had the last post there, so he may have locked the thread for board reasons. Best check that out with a mod or admin or himself.
The layman's answer (although not strictly correct) is that someone under the age of 18 cannot be legally bound by a contract, entered into entirely by themselves (although a parent may act on a child's behalf).
<law student>
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice, or advice designed for one to act upon. YMMV.
The technical answer is that (in the UK at least) minors can enter into contracts in certain situations (contracts for training, contracts of continuing obligation, and contracts for 'necessities'). I'm not sure if the US has such exceptions, but in the US minors can be emancipated, which would probably remove most of the need for contracts with a minor to be binding in special situations. This means that there are probably a handful of under-18's who could be legally bound by a contract in the US, but such exceptions are rarely covered by blanket terms and conditions from companies like Google! :-)
</law student>
The layman's answer (although not strictly correct) is that someone under the age of 18 cannot be legally bound by a contract, entered into entirely by themselves (although a parent may act on a child's behalf).
Well I obviously meant in relation to the "contract" - if it can be termed that with Google. I wasn't meaning it in relation to all contracts. The Google "contract" doesn't fall under the exceptions in this case.
The second way is for the contract to be "voidable" - that is, it is legally enforceable unless a party who has the legal power to do so declares the intention of voiding the contract. In most jurisdictions, except as outlined above (e.g., contracts for the necessities of life), contracts with minors fall into this second category. If neither party objects, they are enforceable. But if the minor chooses, the minor can void the contract and demand that the parties be restored to their prior positions.
In the event that the minor has purchased a car, voiding the contract would require the return of the car to the dealership, and might also require that the minor pay a sum to compensate the dealer for any wear and tear on the car during the period it was driven. In the case of AdSense... it gets complicated.
Let's take a situation where Google confronts a minor over am AdSense contract violation. The minor opts to void the contract, and along with the contract goes Google's choice of law and venue provisions, limitations on its own liability, etc. It may also be necessary to determine the fairness of the prior exchange (of revenue for ad space) under a formula other than that set forth in the contract. While it may be possible for Google to convince a court that there are equitable circumstances which would justify the application of certain of the terms, but absent fraud or similar conduct by the minor, public policy ordinarily weighs in favor of eliminating any terms that would burden the rights of the minor.
Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of California, except for its conflicts of laws principles. Any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be adjudicated in Santa Clara County, California.
[google.com...]
This one comes under international law too (which gets complicated).
Besides, complicated though it may sometimes be, international commercial law is really just another "choice of laws" issue, not a separate body of law. In the case of whether a contract can be sustained under public policy, courts will always look to the public policy of the forum state.
The UK is a common law nation. The U.S. laws on minors and contracts are rooted in British common law.
US laws may be based on British laws - but that doesn't make them the same just similar.
international commercial law is really just another "choice of laws" issue, not a separate body of law.
Yes, but if the contract doesn't define which jurisdiction it falls under, or contains clauses that are illegal in one country but not the other - what happens then?
In the case of whether a contract can be sustained under public policy, courts will always look to the public policy of the forum state.
Your last sentence doesn't seem to make much sense (to me anyway). What do you mean by forum state? Why would a contract be sustained under public policy?
