This frikkin' insane!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Would such a contract be legally enforceable even on an adult?

Not sure, ask Imran, i dont know how unreasonable a contract has to be thrown out.

Anyway I came up with that off the top of my head. There are clearly many contracts that we DO want adults to have freedom to make, that a child CANT give informed consent to. I think even OzzyKP agrees to that (though disagreeing about the application to teens)
Ok, do you want your 10 YO to commit to enlisting in the army?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Georgia cities:

In Atlanta, they first question they ask you is what business are you in?

In Macon, the first question they ask is what church do you go to?

In Augusta teh first question they ask is what was your mothers maiden name?

In Savannah the first question they ask you, is what would you like to drink?

I should've gone to Savannah instead, then

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Not sure, ask Imran, i dont know how unreasonable a contract has to be thrown out.

Anyway I came up with that off the top of my head. There are clearly many contracts that we DO want adults to have freedom to make, that a child CANT give informed consent to. I think even OzzyKP agrees to that (though disagreeing about the application to teens)
Ok, do you want your 10 YO to commit to enlisting in the army?

For the armed forces we obviously have the freedom to directly compell them to acknowledge an age limit rather than attacking a contract they might sign with a child.

I'm looking for a good example of a contract that would be used to harm a child if the kid were to sign it. I'm having trouble thinking of a good one that doesn't presume incredible stupidty on the part of the kid.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Geronimo
For the armed forces we obviously have the freedom to directly compell them to acknowledge an age limit rather than attacking a contract they might sign with a child.

I'm looking for a good example of a contract that would be used to harm a child if the kid were to sign it. I'm having trouble thinking of a good one that doesn't presume incredible stupidty on the part of the kid.

Child labour doesn't require a contract, but surely everyone who agreed with Ned continues to believe that it should be illegal, right?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Child labour doesn't require a contract, but surely everyone who agreed with Ned continues to believe that it should be illegal, right?

I prefer individualized legislation with age limits to the concept of age of consent.

age of consent is an exceedingly broad brush that basically removes all voice from minors.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I prefer individualized legislation with age limits to the concept of age of consent.

age of consent is an exceedingly broad brush that basically removes all voice from minors.

but isnt that what we have? Age limit for contracts, for tobacco, for alcohol, for sex, for labor (in fact for different TYPES of labor) for military enlistment, are different ages, specified in different legislation. IIU Ned correctly, hes against the concept of an age limit per se.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo

I'm looking for a good example of a contract that would be used to harm a child if the kid were to sign it. I'm having trouble thinking of a good one that doesn't presume incredible stupidty on the part of the kid.

Obvious harm isnt the point. Consent is. A contract that has both pros and cons, and that could therefore be acceptable for an adult, cant bind a child, cause the child is unable to weigh the pros and cons. IE is incapable of giving informed consent.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
but isnt that what we have? Age limit for contracts, for tobacco, for alcohol, for sex, for labor (in fact for different TYPES of labor) for military enlistment, are different ages, specified in different legislation. IIU Ned correctly, hes against the concept of an age limit per se.

Exactly. As far as I could tell, his argument is not about where the line is drawn in various instances, but against the fact that it is drawn at all.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


but isnt that what we have? Age limit for contracts, for tobacco, for alcohol, for sex, for labor (in fact for different TYPES of labor) for military enlistment, are different ages, specified in different legislation. IIU Ned correctly, hes against the concept of an age limit per se.

I'm ok with all of that it's the general concept of age of consent as assuming that minors are incompetant to form and express their own preferences that doesn't sit well with me.

[lord of the mark]

British Colombia Commision on Legal Reform

The concept of freedom of contract has always been based on an assumption of equality of bargaining power between parties, and of their ability to foresee and evaluate the consequences of their contracts. It has been assumed that people of mature judgment have the capability of recognizing unwise transactions and of resisting them. For a long period, however, the law has recognized that there is a likelihood that young people lack the maturity of judgment that is required for the principles of freedom of contract to operate in equilibrium, and has developed doctrines which protect the young from themselves and from the unscrupulous.

In all the jurisdictions in which the matter of minors' contracts has been the subject of recent study, the conclusion has been unanimous that young people continue to deserve the protection in the market-place that the law has historically afforded them. We are of the same opinion. It is probably true that in contemporary circumstances young people who are likely to make contracts have, in general, more maturity of judgment than they did in the past. Yet it is observable that whatever the extent of this maturity, it has been matched or outstripped by the complexity of transactions in modern society, and we believe that there remains a justification for special rules governing the contracts of the young.

This belief leads us naturally to the concomitant question of which young people should have the benefit of these rules. Although in general adults probably have greater capability of assessing the consequences of their actions than, say, most sixteen-year-olds, there are doubtless some sixteen-year-olds who manifest greater acumen than a number of adults. This would seem to indicate that the law should vary from individual to individual, depending on his ability to appreciate the nature of the transaction in which he is engaged. But however attractive this concept may be in the abstract, it lacks a foundation in practicality. It would assume an ability on the part of the adult party to judge, according to a legal standard, the ability of every young person with whom he might contract, and this assumption is clearly insupportable. We are led, therefore, in the interest of making the law more certain, to seek a more arbitrary rule. The obvious choice is to take the age of majority and to suggest that the rules which we later recommend for the governing of the contracts of young people apply to all those who are below that age. The age of majority is nineteen in this Province,1 although we note that there has been a recent recommendation that it be reduced to eighteen.2 Because we acknowledge our choice of the age of majority to be arbitrary, it follows that we set no store by whether nineteen or eighteen is the age at which young people emerge from the protection inherent in our recommendations. We believe that certainty is the most desirable practical objective, reinforced by the belief that there is a complementary claim of consistency in the choice of the age which the Legislature lays down for the transition from legal minority to legal adulthood.

[dannubis]

Is the OP a joke ?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Obvious harm isnt the point. Consent is. A contract that has both pros and cons, and that could therefore be acceptable for an adult, cant bind a child, cause the child is unable to weigh the pros and cons. IE is incapable of giving informed consent.

This is in fact the sort of thinking I find distasteful. They certainly can weigh the pros and cons it's just that on average people will get better at this as they get older until their skill at optimally making such decisions in their own interests tends to plateau at some point.

Placing specific age restrictions on certain activities seems appropriate in recognition of this but pretending that the young are incable of weighing pros and cons seems really offensive and dehumanizing.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
British Colombia Commision on Legal Reform

The concept of freedom of contract has always been based on an assumption of equality of bargaining power between parties, and of their ability to foresee and evaluate the consequences of their contracts. It has been assumed that people of mature judgment have the capability of recognizing unwise transactions and of resisting them. For a long period, however, the law has recognized that there is a likelihood that young people lack the maturity of judgment that is required for the principles of freedom of contract to operate in equilibrium, and has developed doctrines which protect the young from themselves and from the unscrupulous.

In all the jurisdictions in which the matter of minors' contracts has been the subject of recent study, the conclusion has been unanimous that young people continue to deserve the protection in the market-place that the law has historically afforded them. We are of the same opinion. It is probably true that in contemporary circumstances young people who are likely to make contracts have, in general, more maturity of judgment than they did in the past. Yet it is observable that whatever the extent of this maturity, it has been matched or outstripped by the complexity of transactions in modern society, and we believe that there remains a justification for special rules governing the contracts of the young.

This belief leads us naturally to the concomitant question of which young people should have the benefit of these rules. Although in general adults probably have greater capability of assessing the consequences of their actions than, say, most sixteen-year-olds, there are doubtless some sixteen-year-olds who manifest greater acumen than a number of adults. This would seem to indicate that the law should vary from individual to individual, depending on his ability to appreciate the nature of the transaction in which he is engaged. But however attractive this concept may be in the abstract, it lacks a foundation in practicality. It would assume an ability on the part of the adult party to judge, according to a legal standard, the ability of every young person with whom he might contract, and this assumption is clearly insupportable. We are led, therefore, in the interest of making the law more certain, to seek a more arbitrary rule. The obvious choice is to take the age of majority and to suggest that the rules which we later recommend for the governing of the contracts of young people apply to all those who are below that age. The age of majority is nineteen in this Province,1 although we note that there has been a recent recommendation that it be reduced to eighteen.2 Because we acknowledge our choice of the age of majority to be arbitrary, it follows that we set no store by whether nineteen or eighteen is the age at which young people emerge from the protection inherent in our recommendations. We believe that certainty is the most desirable practical objective, reinforced by the belief that there is a complementary claim of consistency in the choice of the age which the Legislature lays down for the transition from legal minority to legal adulthood.

This seems to be the correct approach. Care has to be taken once such a decision is made to avoid reducing such a pragmatic approach into a simplified philosophy that minors are incompetent to form legally relevant opinions at all.

This problem would arise mostly in legal cases where I think it needs to be possible to allow juries and the legal system in general some discretion to assign some consideration on a case by case basis to the express wishes of an involved minor.

That problem does not automatically follow from reasoning in your post here however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


This is in fact the sort of thinking I find distasteful. They certainly can weigh the pros and cons it's just that on average people will get better at this as they get older until their skill at optimally making such decisions in their own interests tends to plateau at some point.

Placing specific age restrictions on certain activities seems appropriate in recognition of this but pretending that the young are incable of weighing pros and cons seems really offensive and dehumanizing.

I think fairly obviously a five year old can make relatively few decisions adequately. A ten year old can make more. A 15 yo can make more than 10 YO, (though is perhaps more dangerous, since the 10 YO is more likely to understand and acknowledge what they need help on ) etc. And obviously some 16 YOs can make decisions better than others. But its obviously impractical to require someone entering into a contract to judge the maturity of the teenager they are dealing with - they need a bright line.

I would suggest that expecting a person having sex with a minor to judge the maturity of the minor to make that decision, and in effect to second guess a court trying them for rape, is not a good idea. A bright shining line is much better for all. (it also avoids some incentive effects you might not like - a parent who wants to keep their kid abstinent might be incented to try to keep them immature if we had a maturity standard instead of an age limit)

I very much approve of encouraging teens and preteens to learn to think for themselves, and have parented that way. I was taking issue with the proposal of Ned, which was seconded by folks who ought to know better.

[lord of the mark]

Im certainly aware of situations like custody cases where the opinions of mature teens are solicited, and important, and I approve of that trend. I think its a far jump from that to dropping laws on statuatory rape.