THE
LAW
PAGE
By David Allen
Valid/Binding
Contracts which are valid or binding - these are agreements where the minors liability to be sued is the same as everyone else (of full capacity)
(a) Necessaries
(b) Beneficial


Contracts for necessaries

Minors are obliged to pay for goods/services necessary to maintain them in their station in life. They are defined as goods or services " suitable to the condition in life of the minor and to their actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery"


Nash v Inman (1908)

A tailor (N) supplied 11 fancy waist coats to a Cambridge undergraduate. Held these were not necessaries because the minor had already had sufficient quantity (provided by his farther) therefore the minor need not pay for them.
Point of law If a minor orders something that they already have sufficient quantity of then those items cant be necessaries.


The range as to whether an item is a necessary is not closed in fact is very wide ranging as much depends on the status of the minor and the subject matter of the contract. For example a powerboat is not a necessary for most people however for the under 18 powerboat champion it may well be considered a necessary.


Elkington and Co v Amery (1936)

Held a gold vanity bag brought by a man for his fiancée on credit was not a necessary. Point of law being that items regarded as luxurious are not usualy regarded as necessaries.

However…

Peters v Fleming (1840)

Held, an expensive gold watch chain was a necessary for a rich young man. Point of law being that it depends on the status of the minor as to whether a luxurious item is deemed a necessary

Chapple v Cooper (1844)

A young widow was sued successfully for the funeral expenses for her late husband, as these services were regarded as necessaries. Point of law is that if a person orders a service that is required and suitable for their condition in life at the time of sale and deliver, they liable. (however the onus is on the party supplying the goods/service to prove they are necessaries)


The Sale of Goods Act 1979, S.3(2) - a contract for necessaries does not mean that the minor has to pay full price (the contract) just a reasonable price.


Beneficial Contracts of service

If on the whole a contract is to substantially benefit the minor in some way (e.g. providing an education training or paying wages) then it is accepted as binding and lawful even though it may include some disadvantageous terms.

Roberts v Gray (1913)

Billiards player agreed to take a minor on a world billiards tour providing lodging and travel expenses under the contract. Minor had changed their mind held, "kind of education" therefore was liable.

Doyle v White City Stadium (1935)

A minors contract was subject to the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control. He was disqualified for hitting below the belt and lost his purse. Held whilst one clause was disadvantageous was still enforceable as on the whole the contract was beneficial due to the training received.

Clements v London and NW Rail Co (1894)

A porter joined an insurance scheme and as a result gave up his statutory rights as an employee. Held despite the benefit that was given up he received greater benefit from the employer as a whole therefore enforceable.

Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (1966)

Contract was made to write the autobiography of Charlie Chaplin held as binding as it allowed a minor to start to earn a living as an author.


However if on the whole a contract is unreasonable, oppressive and not beneficial then it will not be binding.

De Francesco v Barnum (1890)

A girl of fourteen was apprenticed to D for seven years in order to learn to dance. D was not obliged to maintain her, nor did he have to pay her unless he found engagements for her. Even when engagements were found, the rate of pay was very low. She could not obtain engagements for herself, nor was she allowed to marry, during the seven years. It was held that the contract was not binding upon the girl, as it was unreasonable, oppressive and not beneficial to her. Point of law is as above.


Trading contracts with minors will not be enforced

Mercantile Union Guarantee v Ball (1937)

The court refused to enforce a higher purchase contract made by a minor who run a haulage business. The minor businessperson is therefore at somewhat of a disadvantage, as compared t the minor employee. The reason for the laws attitude is in line with the paternalistic approach (we know best) taken in regard to minors contracts i.e. it is felt undesirable that minors should enter contracts, which carry high financial risk, which is what business contracts usually involve. There is no doubt the law posses severe restrictions on the teenage entrepreneur