One of the requirements to enter into a contract is mental competency. In the case of Faber v. Sweet Style Mfg. Corp. (40 Misc.2d 212, 242 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y.Sup. 1963)), Mr. Faber was manic-depressive. He made a major contract to purchase land while in his manic state. He then sought to void the contract while he was in his depressive state (and had been institutionalized). Although manic-depressives do suffer from psychosis, they are capable of living in the real world and can usually pass the cognitive test which is generally used to determine if a person is mentally incompetent enough to lose the capacity to make contracts (aka the doctrine of capacity). Faber went off his meds, and decided to build a drugstore. So in only a day, he bought the land (even bargaining over the price), did the title search, applied for a mortgage, put up a sign saying a drug store was coming, hired contractors, sought a building license, and did a bunch of other stuff. Then he hit his depressed phase and was institutionalized. While in his manic phase, Faber clearly would have understood what he was doing and therefore would have passed the cognitive test. However, the Court held that there was a second test that needed to be applied. Faber was acting out of compulsion from a mental disorder. "Incompetence of a contract also exists when a contract is entered into under the compulsion of a mental disease or disorder for which the contract would not have been made." Courts are divided as to whether the compulsion test held in this case should count, of if they should stick with the older cognitive test. What protection does the seller have if a person acting in a completely rational manner shows up trying to contract with you? In criminal law, most courts follow the cognitive test only. So if you shoplift because you think the item belongs to you, you can be found not-guilty by reason of insanity. But if you shoplift because you are a kleptomaniac and can't help it, you are going to jail.