• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who needs a draft...

crimresearch said:
...and nothing that these kids sign up for 'requires' them to complete an enlistment when they turn 18.

As a general rule, 14 year olds can't sign that sort of legally binding contract, any more than they can buy a house.
Click to expand...
A contract signed as a minor becomes legally binding at age 18 if the person validates it. So, if the kid cashed a check from the Army after his 18th birthday, it wouldn't matter that he signed the contract at 14, it would become binding at that moment.
 
Feel free to supply a little more support for that, and excuse me for not taking it on your say-so.
My reading is that the minor can back out of most contracts, and can't be forced to honor it unless they agree once they turn 18.

Which means that no 14 year olds are being made to sign binding contracts that later force them into military service against their will.

CAN A MINOR ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
Yes, but in general a contract entered into by a minor is not valid or binding. That means that if a minor rented an apartment took out a loan or agreed to buy a car from a neighbor, the minor would not actually be bound to carry out the transaction.
http://www.lubelczyklaw.org/Course/facts-minor.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can a minor enter into a legally binding contract?

Yes. In general, though, a contract that an unemancipated minor (person under the age of eighteen) enters is “voidable.” That means that the minor can get out of (“disaffirm”) the contract at any time before he or she is eighteen without any penalties. As long as the minor wants the contract to continue, however, the contract remains valid and is legally binding on adults involved in the contract.
http://www.sylaw.org/docs/Contracting.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
kimiko said:
A contract signed as a minor becomes legally binding at age 18 if the person validates it. So, if the kid cashed a check from the Army after his 18th birthday, it wouldn't matter that he signed the contract at 14, it would become binding at that moment.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Note: I'm not dog-laughing because what you say is necessarily false in all practical instances but only because it is just plain silly in this specific instance because there very likely does not exist a specific instance of this taking place. I can't prove that (proving a negative is difficult at best) but the claims/reporting in the subject article are almost certainly fabracated.
 
crimresearch said:
Feel free to supply a little more support for that, and excuse me for not taking it on your say-so.
Click to expand...
Here's a couple:

4) Contracts That Have Been Ratified
A minor who fails to disaffirm a contract within a reasonable time after reaching majority is bound-the contract is ratified.
Click to expand...
http://profj.us/wlac/capacity.htm

A loan agreement becomes enforceable against a minor if the minor, upon reaching the age of majority, ratifies the loan agreement. Illinois law allows a minor to either ratify a contract with an intentional act after reaching the age of majority, or to disaffirm the contract within a reasonable time or within the statute of limitations
Click to expand...
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0501120221CHI?opendocument

It differs by state on whether a contract becomes legal without explicit affirmation after a "reasonable time" or if it must be expressly ratified.
 
Rob Lister said:
Note: I'm not dog-laughing because what you say is necessarily false in all practical instances but only because it is just plain silly in this specific instance because there very likely does not exist a specific instance of this taking place. I can't prove that (proving a negative is difficult at best) but the claims/reporting in the subject article are almost certainly fabracated.
Click to expand...
You think it is silly that contracts signed by a minor can be legally binding upon reaching the age of majority or silly in the Army scenario? I wasn't implying that I think the Army is really doing this, just throwing that tidbit of info out there for speculative purposes. Pretty much what this thread is about.
 
kimiko said:
You think it is silly that contracts signed by a minor can be legally binding upon reaching the age of majority or silly in the Army scenario? I wasn't implying that I think the Army is really doing this, just throwing that tidbit of info out there for speculative purposes. Pretty much what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

You suggested that contracts acted upon at the age of majority are legally binding. I don't necessarily disagree but that is not what this thread is about.
 
Rob Lister said:
You suggested that contracts acted upon at the age of majority are legally binding. I don't necessarily disagree but that is not what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
"Acted upon" can be explicit or implicit depending upon the state. Some states also only allow a window of a "reasonable time" to elapse before the contract becomes legally binding.

I meant the "speculative purposes" was the point of the thread, not the contract bit. I thought the thread was speculating on the possibility and ramifications of this recruiting tactic being true, given the posts about the responsibility and maturity of minors.
 
kimiko said:
Here's a couple:

http://profj.us/wlac/capacity.htm

http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0501120221CHI?opendocument

It differs by state on whether a contract becomes legal without explicit affirmation after a "reasonable time" or if it must be expressly ratified.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks...it still appears that in general a person can't be forced to honor a contract they signed as a minor, unless they agree to or at least fail to object to it, once they become an adult.

So the perception of 'You signed it when you were 14, and now you're stuck with being in the military against your will' that the original article suggests, is in fact off base.
 
kalen said:
To avoid being hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Treating different situations differently is not "being hypocrites".

crimresearch
OK, thanks...it still appears that in general a person can't be forced to honor a contract they signed as a minor, unless they agree to or at least fail to object to it, once they become an adult.
Click to expand...
Except that we're not dealing with "in general", we're dealing with the military. In general, one cannot be threatened with jail to force specific performance, yet one can be if one is in the military.
 
And as pointed out, none of these 14 year olds can possibly be 'in the military'...

Nor can they be forced to enter the military against their will once they turn 18, based solely on the signature of a minor.

It is a non-binding contract, unless they willingly choose to accept it once they are of age.


"By federal law (10 U.S.C., 510), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent...."
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlstandards.htm

Of course it may be different in your universe.
 
crimresearch said:
And as pointed out, none of these 14 year olds can possibly be 'in the military'...
Click to expand...
Which completely misses my point, which was that a general statement about the law don't necessarily hold for the military. But as your last line illustrates, this isn't really about whether I have a point, this is about the vendetta you've developed against me. If recent history is a guide, you'll now tell me that history suggests that I will engage in personal attacks and fradulent claims, then you will proceed to make personal attacks and fradulent claims, and when you're confronted with your dishonesty, you'll run off to another thread to start the cycle anew.
 
Oh, for heaven's sake.

Yes, it was a hoax, and yes, I was foolish enough to fall for it. Such is my cynicism, I thought it sounded plausible.

It sounded like the Junior ROTC, which in my high school was filled with wannabes who tried to act all military and put on airs, and didn't notice that none of their number, in this hugely military area, included military dependents who would laugh cynically when all the benefits and glories of military life were brought up.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Which completely misses my point, which was that a general statement about the law don't necessarily hold for the military.
Click to expand...

Note that I omitted the second part of your post because...well, because I could.

You're right, general contract law doesn't necessarily apply to the military. Even the linked article pretty much says that.

If federal law allowed a 14 year-old could join the service then said 'child' could be held accountable. But it doesn't.

But if it did it wouldn't necessarily set an unusual precedent -- just as a 14 year-old can be tried as an adult (though I've always wondered what would happen if the 14 year-old being tried as such insisted upon acting as his own attorney). The thing is, again, that federal law doesn't currently allow a 14 year-old to join the service...

It would though if it had to. IIRC, during WWII the maximum draft-age was 45 because of necessity. I'm close to that age so I'm thinking what it would be like if I got 'drafted' and had to go to boot-camp. Likewise, if necessity required it, 14 year-olds could be enlisted, or drafted, or whatever.

But it isn't. Necessary, that is.

As an interesting aside, do you know what happens to a 16 or 15 year-old that lies about his age in order to join the military?
 
Rob Lister said:
As an interesting aside, do you know what happens to a 16 or 15 year-old that lies about his age in order to join the military?
Click to expand...

In previous times, when caught the military seems to have winked and looked the other way.

My grandfather lied about his age to get into WWII. Worked his way up from private in the army to colonel in the air force. Purple heart, POW, fought in Korea and Vietnam, too.

While being immensely proud of my grandfather and his war service, I would fricking kill any son of mine that attempted to follow in his footsteps in that fashion. Such is magic of familial generations.

Lol. My mother disparaged Clinton as a draft dodger for the whole of his term, but in a panic when this latest war broke out, attempted to make me promise to move to Canada if a draft started. Not that I would. I mean, patriotism aside, they put gravy on french fries. Ewww!
 
Art Vandelay said:
Which completely misses my point, which was that a general statement about the law don't necessarily hold for the military. But as your last line illustrates, this isn't really about whether I have a point, this is about the vendetta you've developed against me. If recent history is a guide, you'll now tell me that history suggests that I will engage in personal attacks and fradulent claims, then you will proceed to make personal attacks and fradulent claims, and when you're confronted with your dishonesty, you'll run off to another thread to start the cycle anew.
Click to expand...

Or maybe I'll just get Snopes to lie for me, just to abuse poor,poor, pitiful you.
:rolleyes:


It must really suck to have to put up with the rest of us who are in touch with reality, and try to keep forcing it down your throat, hey Art?

So where are we with that Art? In your world, the military can sign up 14 year olds, and they are bound to serve, because contract law about juveniles doesn't apply to the military?.

Is that the sort of thing that I'm 'running away' from Art?

Or did you fail to detect the sound of laughter?
 
crimresearch said:
It must really suck to have to put up with the rest of us who are in touch with reality, and try to keep forcing it down your throat, hey Art?
Click to expand...
No, but it is annoying for you to constantly hijack threads to lie about me.

So where are we with that Art? In your world, the military can sign up 14 year olds, and they are bound to serve, because contract law about juveniles doesn't apply to the military?
Click to expand...
I never said any such thing. Are you so unfamiliar with logic that you are unable to distinguish between "There is a potential problem with your argument in support of statement A" and "Statement A is false"?

Is that the sort of thing that I'm 'running away' from Art?
Click to expand...
No, I was talking about things like this and this. You know, those other two times that you lied about me, then skipped out when I pointed it out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom