In regard to the rule used in determining the obligations of a minor on disaffirmance of a contract, discuss both the traditional rule and also the modification of the rule applied in a number of states today, set forth which of the rules you support, and why.

Traditionally, most states simply required the minor to notify the competent party of the intent to disaffirm and to return to the competent party any consideration received under the contract that was still under the minor's control, regardless of the condition of the consideration. If the consideration had been damaged or destroyed, the other party had no recourse against the minor. A number of states have modified the duty of the minor on disaffirmance, holding that the minor has a duty of restitution that requires that she or he place the competent party back in the position that party was in at the time that the contract was made. When returning damaged goods in those states, the minor would be required to compensate the competent party for the difference between the value of the item in the condition it was in when given to the minor and its value in the condition it was in when returned. Student responses will vary on the most appropriate rule.