What Is A Voidable Contract? Flashcards
(15 cards)
Voidable contract?
Is that which an infant benefits interest from a property of permanent nature. E.g marriage settlement, lease on a property, acquiring shares etc.
can an infant rescind a voidable contract?
Yesssss! That is why it is void, because he can choose to either repudiate it or not.
Reasonable time for repudiation?
While he’s an infant or after a reasonable time after he has reached the age of majority……
Case for reasonable time?
Edward v. Parker - 3 yrs is too far for reasonable time.
If you like rescind a voidable contract….you will still be lo able for thr obligations that have occurred before the repudiation. Case?
Blake v. Conca cannon
A contract for supply of goods with an infant…..is not binding on the infant.
Mercantile union guarantee corp Ltd, v. Ball— here the infant was held not liable to the installment payment of a Lorry he hired under hire purchase for his business.
Cowers v. Nield—- an infant; supploer of hay and straw was paid In advance to deliver his goods, but the court held that he was not liable to refund the money when he failed to deliver the goods.
For an infant to recover what he he paid for a property or a property he has transferred to another?
Yessss! He has to prove that there was total failure of consideration on the part of the other party.
Case for total failure of consideration——-where it failed?
Holmes v. Blogg- here, the infant entered into a contract while he was a minor,and repudiated it immediately he turned majority (one day after he became 18 yrs old), the court held that the technical rule of “total failure of consideration” still applied. And there was no total failure of consideration, because the infant received the consideration agreed, and it is not the business of the court to weigh the consideration!
An infant is not liable in Tort, if the claim arise from the contract an infant is not liable to.
Johnson v. Pye- an infant misrepresenting his name to acquire a loan, and the court held that he was not liable in tort.
Jennings v. Rundall- the infant borrowed a horse, injuries it by riding it too hard. The court held that head was not liable to negligence in tort.
An infant will not be liable in contract or tort for false representation….
Yes! But there is an exception, which is created by the equitable doctrine of restitution, that stops an infant from benefiting from a contract.
actions of restitution
A. Fraudulent possession of goods, the infant will be asked to return it.
B. Sales of fraudulent goods- he will be held accountable for the proceedings as seen in Stock v. Wilson; however this was criticized sha.
C. Fraudulent loan of money- Leslie Ltd v. Shiell; here the lender cannot recover his money: onlyyyyyy- if the infant has exactly that money!
Nash v. Inman
I don’t have time to write the facts….but all I know is, I’ll just gather boys for Inman. 😭🤚
