306

LAWS OF MARYLAND

[Ch. 49

Section 9-403(5), and 9-404 through 9-406 -
cross—references to §7-202(b) (4) of the Courts
Article are corrected.

Section 9-407 (added by Ch. 344, Acts of 1970) -
"file the document" is substituted for "file
document".

Finally, §10-102(1) is proposed for repeal as
obsolete.

Although Title 9, which relates to secured
transactions, is basically non-uniform, the Commission
decided not to undertake any revision of it at this time.
A user of the Code should take note that Title 9, as
enacted in Maryland, is at variance with Article 9 of the
Official Text.

Chapter 651, Acts of 1973, amended §1—103 of the
Uniform Code to provide that the age of majority, as it
pertains to contracts, is 18 years. The Commission notes
that the last clause of the 1973 addition provides that
"the legal defense of minority may only be asserted by a
person under eighteen years of age". This wording, taken
literally, would appear to be contrary to the general
rules governing the contracts of minors in Maryland, and,
the Commission suspects, may have been drafted more
restrictively than actually intended. It implies that no
one else but the minor may assert the defense on his
behalf, and that a person who makes a contract while a
minor may not assert the defense on his own behalf at any
time after he has reached majority. On the other hand,
the general rule in Maryland has been that, if a contract
made by a minor is not beneficial to him, the contract is
void ab initio, and, if it is of an uncertain nature, it
is voidable only at the election of the minor. See,
e.g., Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Fankhanel, 49 F. Supp. 611
(D. Md., 1943); Ridgley v. Crandall, 4 Md. 435 (1953). As
to voidable contracts, the minor may disaffirm the
contract either during his minority or, unless ratified
by him, within a reasonable time after he attains his
majority. See, e.g., Crown Cork & Seal, supra; McBriety
v. Spear, 191 Md. 221 (1948); Adams v. Beall, 67 Md. 53
(1887). Furthermore, voidable contracts also may be
disaffirmed by the minor's privies in blood. See, e.g.,
Levering v. Heighe, 2 Md.Ch. 81 (1859). The Commission
is uncertain as to whether or not, or to what extent, the
quoted provision of §1—103 was intended to limit or
otherwise modify these rules. In light of the importance
of these matters, clarifying legislation may be
appropriate.

Chapter 344, Acts of 1970, added new §9-407 to