4 ms·

I 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 no

• rndgermandude 7y ago
  First 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.