Exercise 1. Comprehension questions:
1. When a minor disaffirms a contract what is he entitled to?
2. Give definition of minority and majority.
3. In what cases are the minors liable on their contracts?
4. What privilege do the minors have?
5. Explain what necessaries are.
6. When are the parents liable for contracts executed by minors?
7. When may people ratify contracts made during minority?
8. What rights do people who suffer from mental illnesses have when they make a contract?
Exercise 2. Find in the text English equivalents to the following:
Отказываться; утверждение; правоспособность; дееспособность; отказывать в подтверждении; эмансипировать; ратификация; опровержимая презумпция; последующее одобрение.
Exercise 3. Consult recommended dictionaries and give words or phrases to the following definitions:
Правоспособность; дееспособность; имущественная ответственность гражданина; недопустимость лишения и ограничения правоспособности и дееспособности; опека; попечительство; распоряжение имуществом подопечного; юридическое лицо.
Exercise 4. Be ready to talk on one of the following topics:
1. Describe the general legal presumptions with regard to a party's capacity to create a contract.
2. Explain why the law allows minors to void contracts for anything other than necessaries.
3. Distinguish between emancipation and abandonment and explain the meaning of each concept.
4. Assess the potential liability of minors who lie about their age when entering into a contract.
5. Contrast the legal liability of minors in contracts involving necessaries with their legal liability in contracts that do not involve necessaries.
6. Identify types of contracts that the law may except from the general rule that contracts by minors are voidable by the minor.
7. Contrast the contractual capacity of persons declared legally insane with that of those not declared legally insane.
8. Discuss the contractual capacity of drugged or intoxicated persons.
Exercise 5. Make up your own dialog on the case: In Jefferson Credit Corp. v. Marcano, a buyer who had «at best a sketchy knowledge of English language» signed an automobile installment sales contract which waived the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The court found «it can be stated with a fair degree of certainty» that the buyer neither knew nor understood that he had made such waivers, even though they were printed in large black type.
