Suppose Renee Beaver can prove that she did not actually sign an exculpatory clause and this fact convinces race organizers to pursue a settlement. They offer to pay Beaver one-half of the amount that she is claiming in damages if she now signs a release of all claims. Because Beaver is young and the full effect of her injuries may not yet be clear, what other type of settlement agreement might she prefer? What is the consideration to support any settlement agreement that Beaver enters into with the race organizers?

See explanation below.

Explanation: At common law, minors are allowed to enter into contracts, never minding their provisions. The validity of the contract and its' individual provisions themselves, may or may not be enforceable depending on many other factors.

Therefore, exculpatory clauses are generally not favored by courts and when they are upheld, they are construed strictly against those attempting to invoke them.

Beaver attempted to disaffirm the contract in what is assumed to be a reasonable time by her action of filing suit against the operator. However, most states only permit a minor to disaffirm a contract in its' entirety.

some courts refuse to allow minors to disaffirm fully performed contracts unless they can return all consideration received; and some courts permit disaffirmance but subject the minor to tort liability for his or her misrepresentation.

Also, the court could conclude that Beaver did in fact implicitly accept its terms. However, when a minor enters into a contract, she or he may only accept the terms of the previously unenforceable contract if they do so within a reasonable time after they reach the age of majority. Beaver's filing of a lawsuit against the operator likely constitutes an action intending to implicitly disaffirm the terms, the absence of which is required to affirm a contract by a minor.