Minors Unauthorized Sale Void

Summary

The sale transaction between Z and Carlo over Xs gaming gadgets is likely null and void because X, a minor, did not authorize the sale. Z was only contracted to find renters, not to sell the gadgets. To make the contract valid, X must ratify the sale upon reaching the age of majority, or his parents or legal guardians could ratify it on his behalf. In the case of X and Roger, the contract is not automatically null and void, but it could be challenged due to Xs age and Rogers capacity to consent. The involvement of Rogers mother and cousin adds some validity. For X and Bob, the contract may be valid as X was in a lucid interval, but the inflated price could be challenged as exploitative.

Full Conversation

Assuming for example that the contract of sale between Z and Carlo is defective, is there any way in order to make it perfectly valid?
Yes, there are ways to make the contract of sale valid:
- X, as the owner, must ratify the sale transaction once he reaches the age of majority (18 years old).
- X’s parents or legal guardians could also ratify the sale on his behalf.
- The contract terms must be reviewed to ensure they comply with Philippine law.
Would you like to know more about the ratification process?
CASE *: X, a *-year old drug dealer is vacationing in Benguet. In a secluded mountainous place of Tuba, he met Roger who despite his autism is best for his ability to catch exotic animals. X agreed to pay Roger P1,*.* for every large fruit bat that he could catch so they could eat it during his stay. Roger said that he would ask first the permission of his mother, the latter then gave her nod and allowed him to do so with care. She also asked his adult cousin to assist him in the process of hunting. So X and Roger had a closed deal. QUESTION: Is the contract between X and Roger null and void? Answer yes or no, then followed by your concrete explanation in not more than five (*) sentences
No, the contract between X and Roger is not automatically null and void. While X is a minor (17 years old) and Roger has autism, both parties have shown a level of understanding and agreement. However, the contract could be challenged due to X's age and Roger's capacity to consent. Roger's mother and cousin's involvement adds some validity, but legal guardianship and the nature of the agreement (catching endangered species) could raise legal issues.
Would you like to know more about the specific laws regarding contracts involving minors and individuals with disabilities in the Philippines?
CASE *: X is a clinically insane person who developed said episodes of insanity after suffering from depression brought about by the tragic death of his parents. X legally inherited all that his parents left as the sole heir. His neighbour Bob is a *-year old ambitious millennial who has a mind of a budding entrepreneur. One day, while X is in his lucid interval, Bob sold his Apple laptop to him at double its original price. X nonetheless agreed and paid Bob the agreed selling price. QUESTION: Is the contract between X and Bob valid?
The contract between X and Bob may be considered valid as X was in a lucid interval when he agreed to the sale. According to Philippine law, contracts entered into during lucid intervals by individuals who are otherwise legally incapacitated can be valid. However, the inflated price could be challenged as exploitative.
Would you like to know more about the legal protections for individuals with mental health conditions in the Philippines?