contract-law minor equity
If a minor enters a contract without the other party knowing about the age, and then the minor breaks a term, is it fraud?
<p>A minor who signs a contract can void it at any time, which might cause damage to the other party. Let's consider this scenario:</p>
<p>A minor signs a contract with an adult online with neither party knowing each other's age. So the adult assumes that the contract is legally binding for both. The minor knows that the contract can be voided at any time, but doesn't tell the adult. In the contract, there is a confidentiality agreement which the minor breaks, such as giving out trade secrets to others. The adult decides to file a lawsuit but only then realizes that the contract was never truly valid.</p>
<p>In that case, will the minor face any charges? What can be done?</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a> <a href="/questions/tagged/united-kingdom" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-united-kingdom-tooltip-container">united-kingdom</a> <a href="/questions/tagged/equity" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;equity&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;equity&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-equity-tooltip-container">equity</a></p>
<p>A court exercising its equitable jurisdiction may disallow a minor from impeaching the validity of a contract on the grounds of minority if the minor acted fraudulently: <em>Wilbur v. Jones</em> (1881), <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jkzc0" rel="noreferrer">21 N.B.R. 4</a> (C.A.).</p>
<p>See also <em>Stocks v. Wilson</em> (1913), <a href="http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpKQB/1913/46.html" rel="noreferrer">2 K.B. 235</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What the Court of Equity has done in cases of this kind is to
prevent the infant from retaining the benefit of what he has
obtained by reason of his fraud. It has done no more than this,
and this is a very different thing from making him liable to pay
damages or compensation for the loss of the other party’s bargain.
If the infant has obtained property by fraud he can be compelled
to restore it; if he has obtained money he can be compelled to
refund it. If he has not obtained either, but has only purported
to bind himself by an obligation to transfer property or to pay
money, neither in a Court of law nor a Court of Equity can he
be compelled to make good his promise or to make satisfaction
for its breach.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Fraud in this context is not limited to literal misrepresentations at the time of contract formation</strong>: &quot;support may be found for the view that the mere fact that the minor wishes to retain the property which he has obtained while at the same time pleading infancy as a defence to a claim for its value, is fradulent conduct in the requisite sense... 'for an infant to attempt to obtain something for nothing is, in effect, fraud in the eye of equity'&quot;: John D. McCamus, &quot;<a href="https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=2387&amp;context=scholarly_works" rel="noreferrer">Restitution of Benefits Conferred Under Minors' Contract</a>&quot; (1979) 28 U.N.B. Law Journal 89.</p>
<p>In the circumstances you describe, if all is believed by the court, the court may exercise its equitable jurisdiction to require the infant to return any benefit they obtained from the transaction.</p>
<p>I cannot find an example case, but it also seems open for the court to enjoin the minor to stop disclosing the secrets.</p>
<h3>Common law and equity</h3>
<p><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93518/46948">user6726's answer</a> focuses on the limited nature of remedies for this wrong at common law. user6726 is correct that fraudulent misrepresentation has a fairly narrow conception in common law, and it is a good answer for pointing this out. My answer is complementary in that it focuses on potential equitable remedies. This is yet another example where the <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/85675/what-are-equity-and-equitable-remedies">distinction between common law and equity is significant</a>: common law produces a somewhat harsh result for the wronged party, but equity may step in to return some fairness to the situation.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The common law rule is that a minor is not liable to restore benefits conferred on him under a contract which is unenforceable against him, even if the contract results from his fraudulent misrepresentation of majority.</p>
<p><em>Chitty on Contracts</em>, §11-056.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-united-states-tooltip-container">united-states</a></p>
<p>Contract fraud requires that
a representation was made, it was false, the defendant knew at the time that the representation was false, and intended that the plaintiff rely on it, in addition plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and suffered harm as a result. In your scenario, the child does not make a representation, so failure to ask is the responsibility of the plaintiff. In general, there is no duty to speak, except in limited circumstances such as involves a serious defect or serious risk of injury. The plaintiff therefore cannot sue for damages, though if the minor disaffirms the contract in a timely manner, most states will require returning the goods / consideration in their possession. Also, certain contracts can't be disaffirmed by a minor.</p>
<p>Criminal prosecution for fraud is highly unlikely. In the US, most criminal fraud statutes are limited to specific kinds of fraud such as real estate fraud, vehicle fraud, check or credit card fraud, identity fraud, forgery.</p>
