Nikitin, a 14-year-old student of the technical school, with the approval of his parents, began to raise money to buy a VCR. After a year and a half, he had the amount necessary for the purchase, and 20% of this amount was deferred by him from the scholarship during this time, his grandmother gave him 30% as a gift for this purchase, and he earned the remaining 50% during the holidays. Without asking permission of parents who had left for his relatives in another city for three days, Nikitin bought a video recorder from his technical colleague, 16-year-old Dementiev, and he still had some money for which he opened a deposit account in the Sberbank branch. Nikitin's parents, believing that their son had made an unsuccessful purchase, demanded that Dementiev and his parents terminate the contract. In turn, Dementieva’s mother demanded that the video recorder be returned to her son, since he had acquired the tape recorder on his own earnings from self-employment, which Dementiev carried out with the consent of the parents. She, as a mother, is resolutely against the transaction made by her son against her permission. Meanwhile, Nikitin and Dementiev stated to their parents that they would not terminate the contract, since neither the money nor the video recorder belonged to their parents.
Dementiev’s mother appealed to the court with a claim for invalidation of the transaction on the basis of art. 175 GK, since the question of the emancipation of her son was not raised, and the decision was not taken either by the guardianship authorities or the court.
What will be the court decision?

After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.