Which of the following can be a defense against the enforcement of a contract?

The defense of minority of one party is grounded in the legal principle that individuals who are considered minors (typically those under the age of 18 in most jurisdictions) cannot be held to the same contractual obligations as adults. This protection is based on the idea that minors may lack the requisite judgment and experience to enter into binding agreements.

If a minor chooses to void a contract, they can do so regardless of whether the other party has performed under the contract or not, reflecting the legal system's acknowledgment of the need to protect minors from exploitative practices. This principle is especially relevant when considering contracts for necessities (like food or shelter) versus non-necessities, where the rules may differ slightly.

Understanding this defense is crucial in contract law, as it highlights the importance of capacity—one of the essential elements for the enforceability of a contract. Contracts involving a minor can often be disaffirmed, protecting them from obligations that they may not fully understand or be able to fulfill.