ContractsProf Blog

Editor: Myanna Dellinger
University of South Dakota School of Law

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Minor's disaffirmance of a contract frees them from the arbitration provision, too

I never spend a lot of time on minors and contracts, because I teach a one-semester Contracts course and it just has to keep moving, but this is an interesting case delving into the issue in much more detail than I can get around to, recently out of the Northern District of California, T.K. v. Adobe Systems Inc., Case No. 17-CV-04595-LHK (behind paywall). 

T.K. was a minor who was given a license to access Adobe's Creative Cloud Platform. In order to access the platform, T.K. agreed to the terms of service. The license auto-renewed after a year, and T.K. contacted Adobe to disaffirm renewal of the license. Adobe eventually (although apparently not immediately) refunded T.K.'s money for the renewal, but T.K. sued alleging injury because she was deprived for some time of use of the funds auto-debited by Adobe. T.K. alleged that Adobe initially refused to allow T.K. to disaffirm the auto-renewal, in contravention of law. (T.K. also alleged that Adobe's terms of service implied that users still had to pay even after cancellation, also in contravention of law. I'm not going to focus on that, but the allegation did survive the motion to dismiss.)

Adobe argued that T.K. was relying on the choice of law provision in the disaffirmed contract and so should also be held to the arbitration provision of that contract, because minors cannot cherry-pick which portions of a contract they disaffirm. The court, however, said that T.K. was not cherry-picking. Rather, T.K. had disaffirmed the entire contract. The reference to the choice of law provision was only to buttress her independent choice of California law to resolve the dispute between the parties. Therefore, T.K. was not bound by the arbitration provision. 

The opinion discusses lots more causes of action, if you're curious. 

 

 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2018/05/minors-disaffirmance-of-a-contract-frees-them-from-the-arbitration-provision-too.html

E-commerce, Recent Cases, True Contracts, Web/Tech | Permalink

Comments

The stimulus to revision changed into the common one in every of judicial grievance, in this case made in 1934 by judge Crane in Sternlieb v. Nortuandie country wide Securities enterprise,three in which it became cited that improvidence isn't always a fault of minors best, and that many young humans who have the appearance of adults are forced with the aid of the circumstances of our financial system to have interaction in business on the peril of commercial enterprise men who cope with them. judge Crane talked about that a few states have solved the trouble by using rules.

Posted by: did you do your homework in spanish | May 15, 2018 4:52:11 AM

Post a comment

If you do not complete your comment within 15 minutes, it will be lost. For longer comments, you may want to draft them in Word or another program and then copy them into this comment box.