As a general rule, the law says that a minor, a person under the age of 18 in most states, can disaffirm or cancel a contract they have made because anyone under the age of 18 is presumed to

1.   As a general rule, the law says that a minor, a person under the age of 18 in most states, can disaffirm or cancel a contract they have made because anyone under the age of 18 is presumed to lack the knowledge and experience necessary to understand the obligations that a contract they have made imposes on them.

Does that rule make sense? Is that rule too broad? Clearly, there are individuals who are younger than 18 years of age who understand the obligations that are assumed in a contract. If the rule did not exist, and courts had to consider every contract that a minor made and then wanted to disaffirm, the courts would be more crowded than they already are. Is the rule really a rule of convenience intended to relieve the courts of having to deal with deciding if minors knew what they were doing when they entered into a contract? Should this rule be discarded or modified?

2.  Under the Federal Arbitration Act, employers can require their employees to sign forced (mandatory) arbitration clauses in their contracts. How does forced arbitration affect the average employee? What are some other ways these forced arbitration clauses are used?

Do you agree or disagree with the idea of employers using forced arbitration in their contracts? Why?   

Include research to support your argument to the class.

Cite to any articles or case law you reviewed prior to responding to this question an include it in your post so that your classmates can also review it. You can use APA citations to cite your material. —

These are just DB, please keep them #