CITATION: 276 N.C. 279 (1970)
FACTS
This article will strive to review the verdict given by the Court of Appeals regarding the case between Mason J. and Gaston County. The court declared non-suit after going through the defendant’s evidence and docketed the plaintiff’s request. The accused had finished high school in the year 1966. Later on in 1968, he got married at the age of nineteen and became emancipated. Mason needed money to complete his engineering course. His wife worked as a computer programmer, and they stayed in a rental. The two were expecting to have a baby; hence, Mason had to look for employment. He quit his schooling and approached the plaintiff, an employment corporation, where he signed a contract with them. Mason’s motive was to acquire a suitable job through the help of the agency. The agreement stated that if the company secured the defendant a job in a year, he would be required to pay a particular portion of his first annual salary. Ms. Finley, a member of the company, made calls and found employment for Mason where he would get a starting yearly salary of $4784. According to the contract, the accused had to pay the plaintiff $ 295 because the annual remuneration was above $4680. The agency sued Mason when he refused to pay the amount. He admitted he had not given the company the money saying he was not indebted to do it. Mason went ahead and pleaded his case using the grounds of infancy. The court granted the case to the defendant as a non-suit (Patterson 23).
LEGAL ISSUES
The dispute presented by this lawsuit is whether Mason provided adequate evidence for the implementation of non-suit. The plaintiff appealed the motion of the District Courts and Court of Appeal in North Carolina that defended the accused using the infancy rule. The act strives to safeguard minors from unfair and illegal contracts and gives them an opportunity to acquire services and property to support themselves and those who depend on them. The child is not accountable for any value provided in the contracts that provide them with the access to services and property. Therefore, was the court right in declaring the decision of non-suit using the information supplied by the case? Or did it error and should reverse its judgment after further scrutiny?
COURT DECISION
The court administered the guidelines of earlier cases such as Bridger v Freeman, Maxwell v Skinner, Coffield v Jordan and the majority to uphold that the defendant provided enough information for a non-suit. The decision was made by the North Carolina District and Court of Appeals. However, after an appeal the Supreme Court reversed the earlier motions and directed for the issue of a new trial for the two parties.
VERDICT AND ARGUMENT OF THE COURT
The prior decision made by the tribunals was purely following the majority and the cases conducted before to protect infants from unlawful dealings with adults. The infant rule declared all individuals below twenty-one years as minors. Any contract enacted between an infant and the adult concerning necessities is void on the account of any claims presented by the adult. In the lawsuits carried out since the 17th-century minors always received protection from the law concerning agreements, they undertake to safeguard their necessities, for example, education or marriage (Nash 75).
CONCURING OPINION (Delivered by the Chief Justice Stacy)
For the parties interested in the case, it may seem to express a level of difficulty but it is essential to look into earlier judgments. The plaintiff probably was not aware of the minority of the accused during the process. However, the law has been instituted to protect youngsters from the discretion and design of adults. The infants have a right disregard the contracts for their livelihoods.
DISSENTING OPINION (Delivered by Bobbitt the C.J.)
The generalization of the law using the defense of infancy must be prevented. The act should provide exemptions to avoid the infant from solely profiting himself or herself afterward. Bobbitt analyzes cases where the infancy rule was used indicating that some were justified while others were merely following the example of earlier verdicts. The lawsuit under study was also doing the same thing by making the judgment on non-suit. The recent modifications have declared that minors should be treated as individuals over the age of twenty-one when establishing particular contracts. The defendant should also have given sufficient information for his claims for the court to declare the motion in his favor without any doubts. Hence, the court should look into the case again (Nash 102).
ANOTHER DISSENTING OPINION BY THE JUDGES HUSKINS AND BRANCH
Mason benefited from the actions of the employment agency, and he had promised to fulfill his side of the deal. The information he gave in the lawsuit does not justify the reason for his refusal to pay the money. It also does not indicate that the firm overcharged defendant for the services they provided him. The verdict made in his favor was a lapse in common law, and the respondent should not be accorded any sympathy. The plaintiff; therefore, deserves another chance for the case to be reviewed (Patterson 41).
The law should modify some of the rules that have been in existence for many centuries. The strategy will boost fairness in the delivery of judgments. I support that litigation should protect an infant, but he or she should not use the justice system to carry out malicious motives. It is essential for the society and the economy to develop; therefore, harsh verdicts must be delivered regardless of the emotional aspects of the case. Conclusively, the court should review the particular case and analyze the evidence thoroughly to come up with a fair decision that will not limit any of the parties in the lawsuit.
Works cited
Patterson, Lisa A. Davidson Journal. http://davidsonjournal.davidson.edu/wp-content/uploads/Davidson-Journal-Spring2015.pdf. (2015).
Nash, Jeremy Remy. Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual. New York: Kluwer Law International, 2010. Print.
