Which is true regarding minors in contract law?

In contract law, minors, generally defined as individuals under the age of majority (typically 18 years in many jurisdictions), are not considered legally competent parties. This is because the law recognizes that minors may lack the maturity and experience to fully understand the implications of entering into a contract. As a result, contracts entered into by minors are usually voidable at the minor's discretion. This means that a minor can choose to affirm or disaffirm the contract upon reaching the age of majority or shortly thereafter.

The legal doctrine protecting minors is designed to prevent exploitation and to uphold their ability to make informed decisions about their rights and obligations. Minors are often given this protection to ensure they are not bound by agreements that they do not fully comprehend, aligning with the general premise that contractual capacity requires a certain level of understanding and responsibility.

The other options do not accurately reflect the legal standings regarding contracts with minors. For instance, while some contracts may require parental consent, this is not true for all contracts. Minors can also enter into certain contracts that are legally binding, such as for necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. However, they typically lack the full competency necessary for most contractual agreements, making the statement about them being competent parties incorrect.