If a 17-year-old signs a contract, how can that contract be characterized?

A contract signed by a 17-year-old can generally be characterized as unenforceable. In most jurisdictions, individuals under the age of 18 are considered minors, and contracts they enter into are typically not legally binding on them. This means that while the contract exists, it cannot be enforced against the minor. The primary rationale for this principle is to protect minors from being held to agreements that they may not fully understand or that may take advantage of their inexperience.

While the option of being void may seem plausible, a void contract implies that the contract is null from the outset and has no legal effect whatsoever, which differs from being unenforceable. A contract that is unenforceable does exist but cannot be enforced in a court of law. Validity with parental consent varies depending on local laws, and typically, for contracts involving minors, consent may allow for enforcement but does not automatically make the original contract valid. Therefore, describing the contract as unenforceable best captures its legal status.