KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
COURSE : LLB
COURSE UNIT : CONTRACT LAW I
YEAR : ONE
SEMESTER : ONE
SESSION : WEEKEND
LECTURER : COUNSEL. BARAKA SAMUEL

GROUP MEMBERS
NO. NAME REG NO. SIGNATURE
1. BONYOKO IBRAHIM 2021-08-06149,

2. MIIRO ALEXANDRIA 2021-08-06382

3. NAMAKULA MARIAM 2021-08-07388

QUESTION SIX
Jenny’s sister Kaswiti who is 16 years old, was preparing to celebrate her
birthday. She went to Sylvie’s Boutique and bought a dress worth 300,000/=
and a bag worth 200,000/= to go with a pair of shoes she had already
purchased. She assured the owner of the Boutique, who is her father’s friend
that she would pay a day after her birthday. Her father had promised to give
her 2,000,000/= on her birthday. However, on her birthday, her father told her
that he would not give her the money because of the poor report of her
declining performance he had just received from her school. She was
devastated! Meanwhile, she had also purchased on credit from Aristoc Booklex
Ltd some textbooks, pens and pencils. Both Sylvie’s Boutique and Aristoc
Booklex Ltd want their money and are threatening to sue Kaswiti.
BRIEF FACT

Kaswiti bought on credit a dress worth 300,000/= and a bag of 200,000/=

from Sylvia's boutique. She also bought still on credit books, pens and
pencils from Aristoc Booklex LTD but in both cases she failed to pay because
her father let her down on the promise of 2,000,000/= on her birthday.

ISSUES TO RESOLVE

1. Whether Sylvia could successfully Sue Kaswiti?

2. Whether Aristoc Booklex LTD could succeed against Kaswiti?

LAWS APPLICABLE

4. 1 . The 1995 Constitution as Amended.

5. 2. The Contracts Act, 2010.

6. 3. The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 2017

7. 4. Case Law.

RESOLUTION OF LEGAL ISSUES.

1. Whether Sylvia could successfully Sue Kaswiti?

S.10 of the Contract Act, 2010 provides for what constitutes to a valid
contract. It's to the effect that ," A contract is an agreement made with the free
consent of parties with capacity to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a
lawful object, with intention to be legally bound”.

The law assumes that parties to a contract have capacity to enter into a
Contract but then lays down restrictions on the ability of certain persons to
enter into contract, to wit persons under 18 years, people of unsound mind
etc. that's according s.11 of the contracts Act.

Article 257 (c) of the 1995 Constitution As Amended refers to persons under
the age of 18 years as Children and this category cannot enter into contracts as
a general rule except under a few circumstances like Contracts with minors
of 16 years and above for purposes of employment as provided for under
article 34 (4) and (5) of the Constitution.

Another exception is at common law and that's contract for supply of

necessaries and under S.4 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act,
2017 which is to the effect that, " where necessaries and are sold and delivered
to a person under 18 years, or to a person by reason of mental incapacity or
drunkness is incompetent to enter into a Contract he or she must pay a
reasonable price for the necessaries”.

"Necessaries" under S.4(4) SOGSA are defined as goods or services suitable to

the condition in life of a minor, and to his/her actual requirements at the time of
sale and delivery". These are goods or services without which a minor could
hardly live. They're thus goods that are essential to the Minor's maintenance.
They include food, clothes, shelter and medicine.

It should be noted that for goods to be classified as necessaries it depends on

circumstances of each case. In particular, items of luxury will not be
considered necessaries. Thus, whereas a suit may be an item of necessaries for
a minor from a well to do family, it might be a luxury to a son of a poor
fisherman deep in the village.

In the case of Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB1, it was held that clothes were not
necessaries and in fact the defendant was not liable to pay. This was however
after producing evidence of adequate supply of clothes to the minor according
to his station of life.
In Ryder v Wombwell (1868) LR 4 Exch32, cufflinks decorated with jewels
were held to be incapable of being classified as a necessary, even for minor
with larger unearned income.

In the subsequent facts, Kaswiti is a minor according to article 257(c) of the

Constitution who cannot enter into a contract except for employment and
necessaries' Contracts according to article 43(4) and (5) of the Constitution
and s.4(3)SOGSA,2017. Relying on Nash v Inman, Sylvia will be supposed to
prove to court that;

1. The goods supplied to Kaswiti are capable of being necessaries,

2. Kaswiti was not already adequately supplied with such items at the
time of delivery, and

3. The goods were actually sold and delivered.

The contract entered into between Kaswiti and Sylvia was neither for
employment nor for necessaries. The dress and bag supplied to Kaswiti are
typically luxury that they cannot be classified as necessaries. See Ryder v
Wombwell. Since this contract was not capable of falling under the category of
necessaries, it can vividly be concluded that Kaswiti lacked contractual
capacity which is an essential element required to form a valid contract and so
Sylvia's claim against her would fail on lack of contractual capacity.

2. Whether Aristoc Booklex LTD could succeed against Kaswiti?

In law, a minor may bind himself/ herself by a contract of Service which is

generally substantially beneficial to him/her. Such may include contract for
his education. S.4(3) SOGSA provides that, " where necessaries are sold or
delivered to a person under 18 years...he/she must pay a reasonable price for
the necessaris.

In Roberts v Gray (1913)1KB520, the defendant minor wanted to become a

professional player so, agreed with the plaintiff a leading professional, to tour
jointly. The plaintiff went through the trouble to organize but a dispute arose
and a minor refused to go. The plaintiff sued for damages. Court held that the
contract was for the Minor's benefit, being effectively for his instruction as a
player therefore the plaintiff could succeed for damages for breach of contract.

In the instant facts, at her request, Kaswiti was supplied with textbooks, pens
and pencils on credit by Aristoc Booklex LTD which materials without doubt
were to be of substantial benefit as regards her education. In Roberts v Gray,
the service given to the minor could help him become famous. Similarly by
giving Kaswiti books, pens and pencils, Aristoc Booklex LTD sorberly believed
that such materials could benefit Kaswiti by way of improving on her academic
career.

It's worth noting that, where a plaintiff successfully sue a minor, he or she will
only be entitled to receive a reasonable amount of money. See s.4(3) of the
Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 2017.

In conclusion therefore, unlike Sylvia whose goods cannot be classified as

being necessaries, rather luxuries adding no impact on the Minor's living, it's
totally a different case with Aristoc Booklex whose goods supplied to the minor
where substantially beneficial as far as her education was concerned. Be that
as it may, Aristoc Booklex is only entitled to a reasonable amount from the
Kaswiti since she's a minor.