|
|
|||||
Search In BriefOver a thousand pages of free legal information written by our selected team of legal experts |
|||||
Browse Legal Topics |
Ask a Solicitor Online |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
Search In BriefOver a thousand pages of free legal information written by our selected team of legal experts |
|||||
Browse Legal Topics |
Ask a Solicitor Online |
||||
|
|
|||||
Element of Contract Bargaining
Offer and Acceptance in Contracts
Notvation and Assignment Contracts
Ratification to Unauthorised Contract
Contracts Relating to Employment Business
Contracts Promoting Immorality
Licences for Ready Made Software
Anticipatory Breach of Contract
Evidence Required to Show Breach of Contract
Duress and Undue Influence in Contracts
Contract Containing False Statements
Those who have an agreement are expected to have the capacity to enter into a contract. Usually adults who have full capacity are able to enter into contracts. However, there are groups who have limitations when entering into contracts. The law provides special protection to those with a mental disability.
Those individuals who are under the age of 18 are recognised as minors, this is outlined under the Family Reform Act 1969. Minors have capacity limitations; there are different types of contracts where there may be liability of minors.
The Sale of Goods Act (1979) defines liability of minors when buying necessaries. Necessaries are the basic goods needed for living, The Sale of Goods Acts states, ‘goods suitable to the condition in life of the minor’. Therefore, minors are liable under a contract for buying necessaries. Necessaries extend beyond the essentials for living, they can also be items which are needed for a young person and for their lifestyle. The minor is not liable for goods or services that have not been delivered to them. Valuable utility items may be considered necessaries but items of luxury are not considered as necessaries. Therefore, a minor would still be liable to pay for such utility items. An example of this was in the case of Chapple v Cooper (1844), where a service was considered necessaries. However, in the case of Nash v Inman (1908), it was decided that waistcoats supplied to a student could have been considered as necessaries, but in this case they were not necessaries because the student’s father had already provided the student with many waistcoats. When something is considered necessaries and the minor liable to pay a reasonable price, this would depend on the income of the minor and whether the goods and services are actually necessaries and are needed by the minor. It would also depend on the supply, even if the minor needed something and can afford it, the good or service would not be considered necessaries if the minor already has a supply of it.
Contracts that are considered for the benefit of the minor are that of service, education, training, apprenticeship and employment. However, the courts will reject a contract if it is considered not in the benefit of a minor. For example, in the case of De Francesco v Barnum (1889), a minor aged 14 years old, had an agreement to train as a dancer on stage, however, the contract had conditions which were considered not beneficial to the minor and therefore, the minor was not bound by the contact.
A case where a contract had been enforced is the case of Doyle v White City Stadium (1935), this is where there was an agreement to train a boxer. There was no money paid, but the contract was enforceable because it was considered that the contract was beneficial because of the training. In another case where the contract was enforceable was in Clements v London & NW Rail Co (1894) where certain benefits were removed from the contract, but the contract was considered to be beneficial.
A ‘voidable contract’ is where a contract can be ended. In this instance, if there is a contract with a minor in a continuous agreement such as payment for renting property. The contract is considered to be valid; however, if the minor rejects the contract before reaching the age of 18 years, this means that the minor can end the agreement in the contract. In the case of Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd (1923), the contract was voided.
However, in the case of Edwards v Carter (1892) the court decided that the contract could not be rejected and the agreement was enforceable.
If a contract is defective and money is paid by a minor, then usually it cannot be recovered unless it can be proved that the contract has not been beneficial to the minor. In the case of Pearce V Brain (1929), it was decided that the goods were not necessaries and therefore the contract became void, the goods could not be recovered, but money could be recovered.
This act was introduced to protect minors, and provide guarantees, when involved in contracts with adults. Section 2 and 3 of the act outline rules with minors and contracts.
In Section 2, a contract would be enforced against the adult where the adult provides a guarantee against the agreement made by the minor. Therefore, if a minor breaches the contract, the adult would be responsible.
In Section 3, a court can have, for example, non-necessaries, property or property representing it returned, if the minor refuses to pay.
Ask your legal question using the box below and have a response from solicitor or barrister within minutes.
