During the investigation, the child declared the facts of the execution of the release and renunciation. He also stated that no one in the facility supervised the kiosk where he had completed the release and waiver. No one asked him for an identity card, asked him who « Joseph Gabbai » was, or asked him to call his parents or legal guardians. He did not understand any of the legal conditions of release and waiver and did not know what arbitration was. First, the Seventh circuit, which owned A.D., was not bound by the cardholder`s agreement and arbitration clause. The court highlighted the specific procedures in the cardholder agreement to designate authorized users that the parties did not follow: A.`s mother. D never informed the bank or paid an annual fee, the bank never issued a new card and A.D. wasn`t even old enough at that time to qualify as an authorized user. Nor did the court find A.D. that he had not expressed his consent to bind to the arbitration agreement, when the minor was unable to enter into a contract, and actively revoked the agreement by filing an appeal.
The institution requested that arbitration proceedings be rendered on the basis of the arbitration agreement in the declassification and waiver made by « Joseph Gabbai » on behalf of the child. After the complainant replied and confirmed under oath that the authorization and waiver had not been signed by the child`s parents or legal guardians, the institution took the child`s testimony and learned that the release and waiver were fraudulent. According to this testimony, the institution amended its request for arbitration and argued that the child could not prevent the application of the arbitration agreement because it fraudulently claimed that « Joseph Gabbai » had the power to enforce the release and waiver on his behalf and that the institution relied on this representation to his detriment by giving the child access to its premises. We agree with the institution that the relevant investigation into this matter is whether, in Florida, a minor can use infant defense to avoid a contract in which the minor obtained the contract through fraud. We also agree that, in this case, the answer is « no ». The Seventh circuit decided that the child was not required to settle his disputes and that his class action could be judged, as the minor was not a party to the mother`s credit card agreement with credit One Bank. Moreover, the applicant was not bound by her mother`s agreement because of a breach of the law of equity, since, in asserting her rights, the applicant did not rely on her mother`s agreement with the bank, but on a federal law. .