What is the consequence of allowing a 17-year-old summer hire to sign a contract modification?

The situation centers around the legal capacity of minors to enter into contracts. In most jurisdictions, individuals under the age of 18 are considered minors and generally cannot enter into binding contracts without parental consent. This limitation exists because minors are often viewed as lacking the necessary experience and understanding to engage in legal agreements effectively.

In this case, allowing a 17-year-old summer hire to sign a contract modification means that the modification is likely not a legal agreement. Since the minor does not have the legal capacity to bind themselves (or the contracting agency) to the terms of the modification, it is voidable. This means that the minor has the option to affirm or void the contract upon reaching the age of majority or in some cases even before that if they choose to do so.

Hence, any modification signed by a 17-year-old summer hire lacks the legal validity necessary for it to be enforceable, underlining the importance of having individuals with full legal capacity – typically those who are 18 years or older – engaging in contractual obligations for modifications to be considered binding. This context supports the chosen answer, emphasizing the implications of a minor's involvement in contracting processes.