Which of the following items are typically considered incapacity defenses to a contract?

• A. Infant, insane, intoxication
• B. Public policy
• C. Duress
• D. Mistake

Answer: (A)

Incapacity to contract means the law treats a party as unable to give truly voluntary consent, so the agreement can be avoided or deemed voidable. Infants (minors), insanity, and intoxication are classic examples because each involves a lack of full, voluntary assent at the time of contracting.

Infants can disaffirm most contracts they enter into, protecting them from overreaching obligations. The contract is voidable by the minor, with exceptions for necessaries of life where the minor may still owe for the value of those items. This is a fundamental safeguard for a developing party who may not be able to fully understand or bear adult-level commitments.

Insanity or mental incapacity similarly undermines genuine consent. If a person is mentally incapacitated at the time of forming the agreement, the contract is typically voidable by the incapacitated party (and in some cases void if the person has been adjudicated insane). The other party’s knowledge or lack of understanding about the incapacity can influence whether the contract is enforceable.

Intoxication is another form of incapacity where the affected party’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of the contract is impaired. A contract made while intoxicated is generally voidable by the intoxicated party, though there can be liability for reasonable value of necessaries if that party becomes intoxicated and still receives those goods or services.

Public policy, duress, and mistake are not incapacity defenses. Public policy questions enforceability based on policy considerations; duress concerns whether consent was coerced and thus invalid; mistake focuses on incorrect beliefs about facts or law at contracting time. The items listed as incapacity defenses specifically relate to lacking capacity to consent, which is why they are the correct focus here.