数字时代未成年人的合同。

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
Liverpool Law Review Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-21 DOI:10.1007/s10991-022-09298-3
Shivangi Gangwar
{"title":"数字时代未成年人的合同。","authors":"Shivangi Gangwar","doi":"10.1007/s10991-022-09298-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Minority is well established as a form of legal incapacity across jurisdictions and laws. Some countries grant minors with limited capacity to contract while others consider all minors' contracts to be void. These rules were laid down in the pre-digital age. Minors today are entering into more and varied transactions than the generations before them, be it shopping on e-retail websites, creating social media accounts, or the more traditional employment contracts. This paper examines how the three jurisdictions of England, India and South Africa deal with minor contracts in the digital age. While South Africa permits minors above the age of seven years to enter into contracts with parental assistance, the English and Indian position is that minor contracts are unenforceable against minors, unless they are 'contracts for necessaries' or contracts for the benefit of the minor. Judicial interpretation of these categories has been fluid and indeterminate, creating its own set of problems. This paper argues from the Indian standpoint that the current understanding is inadequate to address the issues that will arise from the mismatch between law (where minority is almost synonymous with incapacity) and reality (where minors are increasingly entering into contracts). The author suggests that the definition for minority for contractual liability should be graded after the model of criminal liability and demonstrates that there are some, albeit imperfect, gains to be had from the South African system.</p>","PeriodicalId":42661,"journal":{"name":"Liverpool Law Review","volume":"43 2","pages":"237-261"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9212194/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minors' Contracts in the Digital Age.\",\"authors\":\"Shivangi Gangwar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10991-022-09298-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Minority is well established as a form of legal incapacity across jurisdictions and laws. Some countries grant minors with limited capacity to contract while others consider all minors' contracts to be void. These rules were laid down in the pre-digital age. Minors today are entering into more and varied transactions than the generations before them, be it shopping on e-retail websites, creating social media accounts, or the more traditional employment contracts. This paper examines how the three jurisdictions of England, India and South Africa deal with minor contracts in the digital age. While South Africa permits minors above the age of seven years to enter into contracts with parental assistance, the English and Indian position is that minor contracts are unenforceable against minors, unless they are 'contracts for necessaries' or contracts for the benefit of the minor. Judicial interpretation of these categories has been fluid and indeterminate, creating its own set of problems. This paper argues from the Indian standpoint that the current understanding is inadequate to address the issues that will arise from the mismatch between law (where minority is almost synonymous with incapacity) and reality (where minors are increasingly entering into contracts). The author suggests that the definition for minority for contractual liability should be graded after the model of criminal liability and demonstrates that there are some, albeit imperfect, gains to be had from the South African system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":42661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Liverpool Law Review\",\"volume\":\"43 2\",\"pages\":\"237-261\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9212194/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Liverpool Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-022-09298-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/6/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Liverpool Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-022-09298-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在各个司法管辖区和法律中,少数民族都是一种法律上的无行为能力。一些国家允许未成年人签订有限的合同,而另一些国家则认为所有未成年人的合同都是无效的。这些规则是在前数字时代制定的。与前几代人相比,如今的未成年人正在进行更多、更多样化的交易,无论是在电子零售网站上购物、创建社交媒体账户,还是签订更传统的雇佣合同。本文考察了英国、印度和南非这三个司法管辖区如何处理数字时代的小额合同。虽然南非允许七岁以上的未成年人在父母的协助下签订合同,但英国和印度的立场是,未成年人的合同对未成年人是不可执行的,除非是“生活必需品合同”或为了未成年人的利益而签订的合同。这些类别的司法解释一直是不稳定和不确定的,产生了自己的一系列问题。本文从印度的角度认为,目前的理解不足以解决法律(少数民族几乎等同于无能力)和现实(未成年人越来越多地签订合同)之间不匹配所产生的问题。作者建议,合同责任的少数人的定义应按照刑事责任的模式进行分级,并表明南非制度虽然不完善,但仍有一些好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minors' Contracts in the Digital Age.

Minority is well established as a form of legal incapacity across jurisdictions and laws. Some countries grant minors with limited capacity to contract while others consider all minors' contracts to be void. These rules were laid down in the pre-digital age. Minors today are entering into more and varied transactions than the generations before them, be it shopping on e-retail websites, creating social media accounts, or the more traditional employment contracts. This paper examines how the three jurisdictions of England, India and South Africa deal with minor contracts in the digital age. While South Africa permits minors above the age of seven years to enter into contracts with parental assistance, the English and Indian position is that minor contracts are unenforceable against minors, unless they are 'contracts for necessaries' or contracts for the benefit of the minor. Judicial interpretation of these categories has been fluid and indeterminate, creating its own set of problems. This paper argues from the Indian standpoint that the current understanding is inadequate to address the issues that will arise from the mismatch between law (where minority is almost synonymous with incapacity) and reality (where minors are increasingly entering into contracts). The author suggests that the definition for minority for contractual liability should be graded after the model of criminal liability and demonstrates that there are some, albeit imperfect, gains to be had from the South African system.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Liverpool Law Review is a tri-annual journal of contemporary domestic, European and international legal and social policy issues. The Journal aims to provide articles, commentaries and reviews across a wide range of theoretical and practical legal and social policy matters - including public law, private law, civil and criminal justice, international law, ethics and legal theory. The Journal has many international subscribers and regularly publishes important contributions from the U.K. and abroad. Articles and commentaries are published with sufficient speed to ensure that they are truly current.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信