What is the ruling on preemption when a guardian claims a purchase was made for a minor child?

Primary text

When a guardian claims, "I bought this for my minor son," there are two differing views. The first view states that preemption is not established because ownership is confirmed in the child, and preemption cannot be established based on the guardian's admission, as it constitutes imposing an obligation upon the minor's wealth through the guardian's admission. The second view affirms the establishment of preemption because the guardian has the legal authority to purchase on the child's behalf, thus validating their admission concerning the transaction, similar to admitting a defect in the sold item.