Contractual Capacity of Minors

Question 1

Capacity of Minors - Topics

Answer 1

• Minors - Definition
• Types of Contracts with Minors
• Contracts for Necessaries
• Loans for Necessaries
• Beneficial Contract of Service

Question 2

Minors - Definition

Answer 2

• S 2(1) of the Age of Majority Act 1985: anyone under 18 y/o is legally considered a “minor”
• The law generally views minors as requiring protection from their immaturity and the general rule at common law is that a minor lacks capacity to enter a contract.
• It is in the public interest to mitigate the hardship that might be imposed on a party who enters into contracts with minors that are for the benefit of the minor.

Question 3

Types of Contracts with Minors

Answer 3

Law Reform Commission divided contracts with minors into 3 categories:

• Contracts that are binding on the minor
• Contracts that are binding on a minor unless and until he repudiates them.
• Contracts that are deemed void by the Infants Relief Act 1874.

The general rule at common law is that a minor’s contract is voidable.

Question 4

Contracts Binding on a Minor

Answer 4

• Contracts for Necessaries
• Loans for Necessaries
• Beneficial Contracts of Service

Question 5

Void Contracts - Infants Relief Act 1874

Answer 5

• For repayment of monies lent to a minor and Contracts for goods supplied or intended to be supplied to a minor
• 1874 Act doesn’t apply to Necessaries & Beneficial Contracts of Service

Question 6

Contracts for Necessaries

Answer 6

• If a contract is generally beneficial for the minor, he will be required to pay a reasonable price for the “necessary” good. The onus of proof is on the seller.
• Nash v. Inman [1908]: The two-part test outlined in McDermott & McDermott
• Food, drink, clothing, accommodation; medical; legal; transport held necessaries.
• S 2 of Sale of Goods Act 1893: “goods suitable to the condition in life . . . and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery.”
• Skrine v. Gordon (1875): necessaries do not include luxuries or amusement, but a horse was found to be necessary in this specific case.

Question 7

Nash v. Inman [1908]

Answer 7

• An Oxford student bought a supply of waistcoats. His father subsequently avoided the contract on the grounds that the son already had a sufficient supply of waistcoats.
• The court held that it was up to the seller to find out the circumstances of the minor
• Test: (i) if the goods or services are capable of being necessaries in law; (ii) the seller must prove they were factually necessary in the particular circumstances.

Question 8

Loans for Necessaries

Answer 8

• Earle v. Peale (1711): Loans to minors to buy necessaries are not recoverable.
• Marlow v. Pitfield (1719): But if a minor has borrowed and actually paid the money for the necessary, the lender could stand in the place of the person who had supplied the necessary and sue for the money lent.
• Law Reform Commission: the rule in Marlow has likly survived the prohibition on loans to minors.

Question 9

Beneficial Contracts of Service

Answer 9

• Contracts that are beneficial: apprenticeship, trade, employment.
• Keays v. Great Southern Railway [1941]: Even a contract seemingly beneficial for a minor can be repudiated if it contains terms deemed unfairly disadvantageous.
• Chaplin v. Leslie Frewin Publishers [1966]: Not allowed to repudiate book deal.
• Proform Sports Management [2007]: 15 y/o Rooney’s contract held voidable.

Question 10

Chaplin v. Leslie Frewin Publishers [1966]

Answer 10

• The son of Charlie Chaplin forced to apply welfare after becoming estranged from his father. Signed an agreement for an autobiography, but sought to repudiate the contract just before publication.
• The contract held binding bcause at the time it was made it had been beneficial. It allowed him to make a start as an author and earn some money to support his family.

Question 11

Proform Sports v. Proactive Sports [2007]

Answer 11

• A football management and agency agreement with a 15y/o Rooney was held voidable.
• Not analogous to a contract of apprenticeship or education because it did not enable the minor to earn a living (too young to go pro) or advance his skills.
• No liability for procuring (inducing a minor to) the breach of a voidable contract.