- What does the law says about mental persons
- What circumstances can insane and drunken persons enter into a contract
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAYS ABOUT MENTAL PERSONS
The law often addresses the ability of individuals with mental health problems to make decisions, distinguishing between legal capacity and mental capacity. Guardianship and conservatorship laws may come into play when determining an individual's ability to manage their own affairs.
1. Involuntary commitment: Legal provisions exist for involuntary commitment of individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others due to mental illness. However, the criteria for involuntary commitment vary, but often include threats of harm, inability to care for oneself, or serious impairment.
2. Discrimination and Disability Rights: Anti-discrimination laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protect individuals with mental health issues from discrimination in employment, education, and public services.
3. Criminal responsibility: The legal system may take into account an individual's state of mind at the time of the crime. Insanity defenses and reduced abilities may be recognized.
4. Medical and Consent: The law provides for the rights of individuals with mental health problems to make medical decisions, including the right to refuse treatment under certain circumstances.
5. Confidentiality and Privacy: Mental health information is generally protected by laws ensuring confidentiality and privacy, but there are exceptions where harm may occur to yourself or others.
6. Education and Accommodation: Special education laws can provide accommodations and services for students with mental health issues to ensure equal educational opportunity.
See the cases of:
1. Olmsted v. L.C. (1999): where the U.S. Supreme Court case affirms the right of people with mental disabilities to live in community settings rather than in institutions under the ADA's integration mandate.
2. R v Cunningham (1957): This was a landmark case in the UK which established the principle that a defendant is not criminally responsible if he is unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his conduct due to mental illness.
3. Wyatt v. Stickney (1972): This US case concerns the rights of people with mental illness in institutional settings, setting minimum standards for mental health treatment.
WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN INSANE AND DRUNKEN PERSONS ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
The ability of insane and intoxicated persons to enter into contracts is often addressed under the broader legal principles of capacity and mental capacity. The following is a summary of contract situations involving individuals deemed insane or intoxicated, as well as notable cases.
1. Ability to enter into contracts: A mentally disturbed person may lack the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of a contract and most legal systems provide protection by voiding contracts with a mentally disturbed person, allowing the mentally impaired party to void the contract if they can prove that they were insane at the time.
2. Guardianship or legal representation: In certain circumstances, a guardian may be appointed to represent the interests of the mentally ill person in contractual matters.
3. Contract Approval: If the mentally ill person later regains mental capacity and chooses to confirm the contract, it can be made effective through a ratification process.
4. Voluntary poisoning: A contract entered into while a person was voluntarily intoxicated is generally considered valid because that person is considered responsible for his or her actions.
5. Involuntary poisoning: A contract entered into under involuntary intoxication (such as being drugged without the party's knowledge) may be voidable if the intoxicated person is able to prove a lack of capacity at the time the contract was entered into.
6. Invalidity and Approval: If the drunk person can prove that he was incapacitated at the time, he may choose to void the contract. However, if they approve the contract after sobriety, the contract may become effective.
See the case of Klocheck v. Gateway (2004) where the courts have held that a contract may be declared void if an intoxicated party's ability to understand the terms of the contract is affected and also the case of Balfour v Balfour (1919) where the court held that the husband’s promise to pay his wife a monthly allowance during the separation was not legally binding because it was a family arrangement and not a formal contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment