It's Unfair to Weaver

51due论文代写网精选代写范文：" It's Unfair to Weaver "。本篇论文介绍了一个法院判决的一个案子。然而作者并不赞同这个判决，因为这个判决明显对Weaver不公平。作者质疑，当有人对我们的财产造成损害，我们不能得到赔偿，仅仅只是因为他或她年纪还小，而不需要承担责任，这是不公正的。

Because Young was a minor, the key issues they must resolve is that whether lodging was a necessity to Young or not, which means if she was legally bound by a lease. Weaver appealed requesting damages for the unpaid rent and the damage done by Young's dog to the apartment. At first, the trail court entered a judgement in favor of Weaver. According to Callaway v. E.H. Smith Elec. Contractors, Inc., 814 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.2001), if it is shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence and plainly and palpably wrong, it can be reviewed. Young appealed that in the law of the state, she was a minor and lodging was not a necessity, because she could go home whenever she wanted, his father also assured that. As 42 Am.Jur.2d Infants § 71 (2000) and 42 Am.Jur.2d Infants § 75 (2000) states, ”the lodging is not necessaries to the infant if he has a parent or guardian who is willing and able to supply them”. Although she was employed during her renting time, she also kept working when she went back home, that is to say, she did not need lodging to maintain her employment. From 184 Ala. at 234, 63 So. at 162, "The lease representing nothing that was necessary for the infant, and he, in fact, derived no benefit whatever from it." thus as the common-law rule says “infants do not have the capacity to bind themselves absolutely to a contract unless it is one for necessities”. Finally, as Alabama Supreme Court in Ragan v. Williams, 220 Ala. 590, 127 So. 190 (1930) indicates, the lodging is not a necessity to Young, as an infant, she did not have the capacity to bind herself to the lease, that is, the contract she signed before was void. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for the trial court to enter a judgment in favor of Young.

As far as I am concerned, the case seems a little unfair to Weaver. Apparently, whose apartment was damaged by Young’s dog, but the outcome was in favor of Young. It is weird that when someone does damage to our property and we cannot get the compensation just because he or she is a minor and they don’t need to take the responsibility. Therefore, I disapprove of the judgement.-w

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。