Sloop John B (hereinafter "Sloop") a 17-year-old rapper extraordinaire, with the  Group, Two Live Brew, traveled to Boston for a concert appearance

Answer:

Sloop will be successful in this case because at the time of contracting, he was a minor and this means Prancing Horse Motors, Ltd. cannot hold him accountable now that he has turned the age of majority and make him pay for the car.

Step-by-step explanation

When Sloop was contracting to purchase a sports convertible from Prancing Horse Motors, Ltd, he was 17 years old. At the moment, Sloop did not have the capacity to contract and create a binding contract because he was a minor. Despite that Sloop signed the agreement, his contract is unenforceable and void because the defendant had not attained the legal age of majority considered for a person to create a binding contract. In other words, Prancing Horse Motors, Ltd did not have a valid contract with Sloop because he did not have the capacity to contract and purchase the sports car while he was 17 years old. If the company attempts to collect their debt from the defendant, it will be violating the "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" (FDCPA) because as the creditor, Prancing Horse Motors, Ltd cannot show a valid or existing contract with Sloop. Besides, it is unfair practice to collect a debt that Sloop took while he was still a minor after he has attained the age of majority. Generally, Sloop will win this case, because he is not bound to the contract which he entered one year a go before he turned 18 years old.

References

Noraida, H., Asiah, B., Noor'Ashikin, H., & Kamaliah, S. (2017). Minor? S Capacity To Contract In Malaysia: Issues And Challenges.