Lack Of Capacity And Winning The Lottery Case Study

Lack of capacity

The law prohibits minors, mental illness, drugged state, and drunkenness to enter into an agreement based on their inability or the lack of the capacity to contract. A contract is termed as an agreement between two or more parties that is legally binding. There are different terms and specifications or conditions embedded in the contract that are normally intriguing, but vital towards understanding some of the core aspects attached to a contract. I concur with the arguments on reasons why minors should be under the group as lacking the capacity to enter into contracts. The notion that they lack experiences, inability to understand the full specifications, and also likely to be taken advantage of ignorance, forms a firm basis for the need to have a co-founder to make such decisions.
On the other hand, to avert legal disputes, those with mental illness, under drugged states, and drunken grouping as lack of capacity is a significant aspect in relation to maintaining the legality of a contract. For this reason, I concur with the arguments presented in the argument by the law on how mentally ill people lack capacity to contract. The argument bases on the fact that involving such people into a contract makes it void as they lack the ability to make a binding decision. Thus, under such conditions, a guardian should be appointed to oversee and ensure the involved party can comprehend on the terms of the contract. However, I tend to contradict with the arguments presented by the depicted specification on the analogy stipulating how those under drugged state should be availed with exceptions. A conclusion can be derived where those drugged the capacity to contract based on the fact that their state of mind is not sound hence unable to make sound decisions. Thus, contracts made under such conditions as availed by different cases illustrated in the books are void. However, the case where people intoxicate themselves towards upholding the obligations made while under influence, can be forced to honor the terms of the agreement.

Winning the Lottery

The fact that a contract is an agreement between two people that is legally binding reflects cases where such individuals are of sound mind, over 18 years, and also not mentally incapacitated. Although Abe and Bert hand an agreement, it fails to be grounded as a contract based on the fact that they were minors (4 years) when they made the agreement. The law clearly stipulates in such cases by indicating how Bert could have walked away with the 40 million with Abe failing to get any. There was no binding term stipulating how the two legally made entered into an agreement indicating despite the efforts by Abe to sue Bert is likely to be irrelevant. In addition, based on the fact that contracts were primarily emphasized to be widely informed by writing, the argument that there were witnesses when the two made the agreement fails to offer substantial evidence to support the case on why Bert could have shared the amount. The notion that the interchange of lottery ticket purchasing could be used fails to provide essential evidence to support Abe claims.

Response to legal capacity

The responses availed by the student tend to align with the arguments presented in the discussion. I concur with the arguments availed by the student on why the law prohibits minors, mental illness, drunkenness, and drugged state to sign a contract. This is based on the fact that each of these parties is likely to indulge into agreements with no legal capacity hence making the contract void.