Transfiguration here we come

[Barry Arrowsmith]

> 
> Are you sure about that, Kneasy? We're talking employment law here, 
> not buying a house, making a will or agreeing to medical treatment. 
> Employment contracts apply to 16 year olds, because 16 year olds can 
> take full-time employment.
> 

Yes, they can, that's true as a generality, but 'child-stars' or any
under-age potentially high-earner falls into an area that is a 
contract minefield and where the mines tend to explode sometime
in the future.
The courts can over-rule any employment contract made by a
16/17 year old (up until they reach 21) if they think it's not in the 
best interests of the young person. Can apply to other types of
contract, too.

Next question - who decides what 'best interest' is or isn't.
Gawd knows.

Now this is not an aspect of employment that will affect most 
youngsters, but in film contracts where possibly millions are 
involved, plus (traditionally) all sorts of hangers-on and bottom-
feeders lurk hoping to siphon off cash when no-one is watching, 
the courts can get very sticky indeed.
Penalties and back-payments could be huge, not only for the
employer, but for the employees agent, manager, etc. if at a later
date someone starts complaining that they were worth more,
forced to do things they didn't want to, got ripped off by those 
supposed to be looking after their interests, and so on.

Then there's the banks. Oh boy.
Contract law for banks in regard to young persons is a maze on
its own, but the fact that no bank will issue a credit card to anyone
under 18 (because they have great difficulty in enforcing any debt 
repayment on young persons) is an indication that they'll want a
lot more than a 16 year olds John Henry on instructions before 
they'll co-operate fully when large sums are involved. 

Naturally enough in these circumstances employers, banks and the
like want to protect themselves and the best  way is to put the onus
(regarding contract terms/agreements) onto parent/guardian (or 
anyone that has power of attourney) so that if there are screams of
manipulation or rip-off at a later date, they can show that they 
weren't in the business of conning kids. Any dust-up then tends
to be a family matter rather than an employer ending up in the dock.

Basically, the potential employer wants armour-plated CYA and the
best way is not to accept the unsupported signature of an under-age
person. 

In case you're wondering, no, I don't pretend to be an expert in contract
law, but a few years ago there was this legal secretary, and her boss
was getting richer and fatter with a case involving a three-cornered
fight over contracts signed by someone under-age, though not show-biz.  
By all accounts it was very messy indeed.

Kneasy