|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 10:03 AM EST |
True, but then again, the father does not need a contract to
tell that teen he can't use facebook at ALL. even without
paying him.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tolerance on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 02:43 PM EST |
It's not that the contract is legally binding, it's that the
terms and conditions weren't respected. The website won't go
after someone too young; they will go after the guardian for
any damage caused, not for breach of contract.
Absolutely sites like Facebook, youTube, gaming sites etc.
make you declare your age as sufficient to read the material
inside. Teens and pre-teens don't accept this, so they lie,
without consequences (because they can't be sued nor
prosecuted).
But the parents can. (Remember Lori Drew?) And then will be
held accountable for the actions of their children, who they
should have been supervising. Of course nearly all modern
parents won't and can't supervise their children to that
extent, we are talking about what the law presumes here, not
reality. In any event, it's often the teen who will bear the
brunt of their parent's reaction to being prosecuted.
---
Grumpy old man[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 05:54 PM EST |
I minor _can_ enter a contract, but that contract is automatically voidable by
the
minor or their guardian. It would be legally binding for the other side,
unless or
until the minor voids the contract. And legally binding for the minor
as well, until
they change their mind and void the contract, which means it
isn't really very
binding. (The advantage for the minor is being protected from
their own
stupidity or inexperience; the disadvantage is that others will be
rather unwilling
to enter into a contract with a minor). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
