Two quick law related questions

[Lord T Hawkeye]

In responding to a particularily smug statist, there's two law questions I have just to clarify.

He claims the social contract works because your parents agree to it on your behalf and it automatically renews when you hit 18 at which point you can leave if you don't agree to it.
Question: Can your parents actually agree to a contract on your behalf as a child?

Second question: I'm quite certain there was a court ruling stating that inaction cannot be considered acceptance of a contract but does anything have any hard info on this?

[MrBogosity]

Some good info: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/Contracts/LawArticle-651/Contracts-With-Children.aspx

"If a minor is to enter into a contract with the limited efficacy that the law allows, the minor must at least be old enough to understand the nature of the transaction and, if the transaction involves obligations ... of a continuing nature, the nature of those obligations...."

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed.

The second rule is that a contract to which a child is a party is voidable at the child's option with the only exception being the necessaries of life rule, set out below.

When a child reaches the age of majority, she is emancipated in the eyes of the law and receives all her legal rights, privileges and responsibilities as an adult.

Nothing in that link, though, about parents signing contracts for their children.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

There is a law saying that inaction cannot be taken as acceptance of a contract right?

[MrBogosity]

I can find where inaction can be considered repudiation of a contract, but I can't find any situation where inaction can result in the legal acceptance of a new contract with someone the person has had no prior contract with.

[VectorM]

Some good info: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/Contracts/LawArticle-651/Contracts-With-Children.aspx

Btw, "duhai me" in Bulgarian would literally translate as "blow me". I am dead serious.

[Virgil0211]

Some good info: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/Contracts/LawArticle-651/Contracts-With-Children.aspx

Nothing in that link, though, about parents signing contracts for their children.

That's because it would then fall under agency law, which would probably be in a different section. I already replied to him pressing him a bit further on the legal end. I bet 3 more comments before he hits critical.

By the way, estoppel is when someone is held liable for a contract due to inaction, but only under specific circumstances. It usually means that the principal (the child in this case) acted in such a way as to make the parents appear as if they had agency authority when they didn't. If the parents then caused the government to make financial or other decisions to their detriment based on these actions, signing a contract in most cases, and the principal did nothing to stop it, then the principal would be held liable for the contract by estoppel. Of course, it doesn't work the way that bozo claims, so I thought I'd go ahead and point that out.