'For Hectorx' please

Do minors have the right to return items that they have purchased and get their money back, regardless of a store's stated/printed return policy? Why or why not? Be sure to support your answer. Minor in general cannot be made to sign any legal contract which can be biding upon them and hence minor do not have right to agree to contract. Hence in general they are allowed to money back any items and purchases they have made by disaffirming them. This is more so because Minors are not allowed to legally agree to any written contract or contract what so ever and hence even if store have specific minor clause in place, it is equally non-applicable in his scenario and hence their ability to disaffirm it. However to protect retailers interest, item which have been classified as something that are life’s necessity like clothing, food etc. [purchase of those item could be returned by minor irrespective of whether written clauses are in place or not.

Does it make a difference if the minor makes a purchase by signing a written contract? According to applicable laws, Minors are allowed to cancel or disaffirm a contract even if they have explicitly agreed to same. This is unfair for sure but this has been the course of law in light of ensuring greater good of protecting minors from unscrupulous behaviors of adults. Through there are contracts in place which minors cannot disaffirm but those are not written contracts. Written contracts have this restriction because of the right belief of law that minor are incapable of understanding the consequence of written contracts or to reflect upon the fine prints of such contracts and hence the try to avoid the exploitation.

If minors can return purchases in this way, why do retailers continue to sell to minors or other incompetent parties? If the interests of retailers are not protected then for sure they can avoid selling thing to minors. This in fact should be ideal way that retailer should work but because of the straight cash and extra revenue they earn by selling to minor, they do not behave ideally. This is also reflected in the way things like alcohol, knifes and other hardware which are prohibited to be sold to minors are being sold to them. This is also reflected in scenes where few of the things should ideally be sold to minors with written permission from parents or parent accompanying them but are being sold to minors without these clauses being met.

If minors can return purchases in this way, is this fair to retailers who honestly enter into contracts with them? It is definitely not good on retailer’s part if the clause if exploited like this by minors while retailers make the sale. It is unfair to them if minors dis affirm the agreement by making return of purchases by exploiting simple laws which allows them to do so in good faith. It is with this realization only that state have grown to adopt ole of protector in such scenario and protects against possible fragile and susceptible persons ensuring by not allowing such individuals to use the very law as a sword.

If minors cannot return purchases in this way, yet they are considered legally incompetent, is it fair to hold these minors responsible for their purchases in the same way that an adult would be? If minor were not allowed to return purchases the way they are able to at this point of time, I believe it would not have been fair on their end to hold them responsible for the purchases they have made, on similar line like adult. We believe so because not allowing a return and holding them responsible are two separate thing and hence should not be co-related and made dependent upon. This is so because not allowing return of purchase might be initiated to discourage the exploitation they would be making. On the other hand holding them non-responsible would be protect minor from the possible exploitation of seller and hence it is interest at both levels and from opposite sides that comes into play.