5 ms·
This is different. They are enforcing their house rules, by expelling you for non-compliance and barring you from entering their property again. You are only al
by rndgermandude 7y ago
This is different. They are enforcing their house rules, by expelling you for non-compliance and barring you from entering their property again. You are only allowed in there because they let you, after all.
They cannot however put a "If you're under 18 and violate the curfew, you hereby agree to pay a contractual penalty of $1000" in their house rules and sue you for that money even tho you did not consent to their contract.
- escape_goat 7y agoI am not a lawyer, so I will have to ask you to explain why not. It's not immediately obvious to me that the penalty doctrine would apply, as the penalty is not a mechanism to circumvent the recovery of damages through the courts.
- rndgermandude 7y agoFirst of all, also not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the penalty doctrine would most likely apply, as they aren't trying to recover liquidated damages in a reasonable amount. Moreover, it would fail the test of acceptance, because the teen in question would have had to have known about the contract and consented to it, neither of which the mall could likely demonstrate, unless e.g. they could prove they explicitly showed the thing to the teen before entering, not just hung it somewhere. And lastly, the teen being a minor, the contract would be void in most jurisdictions anyway as teens lack the capacity to enter contracts in most jurisdictions. If the teen caused actual damaged, then tort law is still an option, of course. And if the teen refuses to leave or sneaks back in later, then we're talking criminal offenses.