• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess the amount of protection which the law gives to a minor who enters a contract with an adult

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Assess the amount of protection which the law gives to a minor who enters a contract with an adult The basic principle of the present law is that a minor must be protected against his immaturity in his dealings with other persons. At the same time the policy of the law is to mitigate some of the hardships that might be imposed on persons dealing with a minor, so as to encourage them to enter into contracts that are for the minor's benefit. The contracts of a minor may be dealing with under the following three headings: contracts that are binding on the minor; contracts that are deemed void by the Infants Relief Act 1874; contracts that are binding on a minor unless and until he repudiates them. Where a minor enter into a contract with another person, whereby that person sells or supplies him with a necessary or necessaries, the contract will bind the minor. The courts have considered it in the minor's interest ( as well as that of the other party ) ...read more.

Middle

One exception to the rule is if the subject matter of the contract, with the minor, is considered necessaries. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 S.3 defines necessaries as goods that are suitable to the condition in life of the minor and to his actual requirement at the time of sale and delivery. Also, that the minor need only pay a reasonable price for the necessaries; which may not be the same as the contract price. Necessaries can include services such as education. In the English case of Nash v Inman the defendant, a tailor, supplied eleven fancy waistcoats and other items of clothing to a Cambridge undergraduate at a cost of �123. It was held that the tailor could not recover the money as the clothes were not "necessaries", the minor had a sufficient amount of his own clothes. Another exception to the rule is where a minor is bound by a service contract which is for their benefit. This does not mean that a minor is bound by any contract which is beneficial but only those which relate to an employment or similar contract. ...read more.

Conclusion

These have received special treatment, although (as Treitel points out) there is no logical reason why this should be so. However, the case law establishes that contracts concerning land, company shares, partnerships, family settlements and insurance are all voidable by the minor only if he denies the contract. Where a minor agrees to buy shares in a company then the contract is voidable at the minor's option. In Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd. a minor applied and partly paid for shares in the defendant company. However 18 months after the defendant company had allotted the minor the shares she decided to rescind the contract and also sued to recover the money she had initially paid to the defendant company. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to rescind the contract and would not be liable to make any further payments. However she was not entitled to recover the money she had initially paid the defendant company because there was a sufficient amount of consideration as she had been allotted the shares. This area of contract law may need to be rethought and areas within it cleared up as there is no need for a lot of the confusion that it can lead to. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    such as in the case of Anderson v Glass as the consideration is not provided in response to and in support of the promisor's promise. In the case of Roscarla v Thomas, it was held that the fact of the sale did not imply that that there was a warranty

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    once the offeror is death the offer is invalid * But if the offer made to world at large then the issue of the offeror's death doesn't play any roles * However, acceptance made by offeree without knowledge of the death is not termination of offer but the offer should

  1. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    The plaintiff supplied tyres to the defendant. The contract provided that the defendant would not re-sell them for less than the list price. If they breached this term then had to pay �5 for each tyre sold at less than the list price. Cine v United International Pictures [2003] EWCA Civ 1669.

  2. Void and voidable Contracts.

    Karen has clearly asked the manager, who is an informed person, for the dimensions of the sofa. He has innocently misinformed her, thus inducing her to enter the contract. Therefore the contract is voidable and gives Karen the right to withdraw from the contract if she so wishes.

  1. Contract Law

    Therefore no liability will be incurred if the person does not accept any of the tenders or even consider then in a bona fide way (Spencer v. Harding). Each tender will be considered an offer which can be accepted or rejected.

  2. I have been asked to advise a client on considering contracting with a building ...

    The contract has to be for necessities which can be suitable or of needs. Suitability is measured by the living standards of a minor. Things may be necessaries even though they are luxurious in quality for example a rich seventeen year old may class a sports car as a necessities

  1. LAW OF CONTRACT. LAW 103. THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT.

    What did each party know? Both knew that the jetty could only be used by the ship lying on the ground. The business of the jetty could not be carried on unless the ground was supposed to be safe. The master of the ship cold know nothing whereas the defendant might, by exercising reasonable care, know everything.

  2. In advising Bennys position of the interest over the said property (the flat), it ...

    The equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel19, is possibile to redress his remedy to ascertain his position, who has made the form of sacrifices, especially non-financial nature, e.g. raising his son and giving up his future employment prospects. Under this doctrine operates where Amy knowingly encourage Benny to his belief acted

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work