Minor Issues

• Family Law Reform Act made significant changes relating to Minor issues.
One of the major changes was to reduce age of Minors from 21 years to 18
years. Aim of Law is not to prevent minors from entering contract rather
than aim is to protect minors from other people taking their advantage.
• Contracts of minors are divided in three categories:
• 1. Contract done by minors that are valid and enforceable
• 2. Contracts done by minors that are valid in normal situation, but minor
holds right to cancel
• them i.e., these contracts are voidable contracts
• 3. Contracts that cannot be done by minors i.e., unenforceable contracts
• Contract done by minors that are valid and enforceable
• Contracts of Necessaries done by minors are validly enforceable and they have to pay for
those contracts. This rule allows minors to enter in to contracts which are beneficial to
them, along with protection to minors from dishonest business deals. Word Necessary in
this context is a specific legal term and it relates to items which are necessary for living.
However, interpretation of Necessary may vary according to the minor's background.
• Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 necessaries' means ‘goods suitable to the condition in
life of the minor or other person concerned and to his actual requirements at the time of
sale and delivery'. It therefore includes more than just such essentials as food, shelter and
clothing.
• In deciding the issue, the courts can take into account the social status of the particular
minor. For example, items which might not be considered as necessaries for a working-
class child may however be necessaries for one from a wealthy background.
• Case: Nash v Inman
• A tailor supplied a Cambridge undergraduate with eleven fancy waistcoats at two guineas each.
When the tailor sued for payment, student claimed that the contract could not be enforced
against him, as he was a minor. The Court of Appeal held that although the goods were suitable
to the young man's condition in life. However, in this case that child did not satisfy test of
necessity as undergraduate child was already provided by sufficient clothing by his parents. It
was duty of tailor to verify that those eleven waistcoats were necessity for that child OR not.
• Case: Chapple V Cooper
• A minor was a girl whose husband died and she took services of a vendor in burying her
husband. Later when vendor claimed for payment, girl claimed that she was a minor and
contract cannot be enforced against her. Court of law held that contract was of necessity as girl
was under an obligation to bury husband. She was bound to pay because contract was of
necessity.
• The Sale of Goods Act also provides that if necessaries are sold to a minor, but
before receiving the goods, the minor decides that they are no longer wanted,
there is no obligation to accept and pay for them. Further it is to note that a minor
is not bound by a contract which contains oppressive or exceptionally onerous
terms. Whether a term is sufficiently onerous will depend on the circumstances of
each case.
• Case: Fawcett v Smethurst
• A minor was held not to be bound by a contract for the hire of a car, despite the
fact that it was Considered to be necessary service.
• Court of law gave reason of contract cancellation that an onerous clause was
present in contract according to which minor was liable to losses in all
circumstances irrespective of his mistake
• Employment contracts and trainings
• Minors can support themselves financially and therefore they have a right to enter in
employment contracts. However, those employment contracts must be for their benefit
as a whole. In practice this generally means contracts of employment under which a
minor gain some training, experience or instruction for an occupation. An apprenticeship
would be a common example.
• Case: Clements v London and North Western Co
• A minor made an agreement under which he gave up his statutory rights in case of
personal injury, but in against employer agreed to contribute in an insurance scheme on
his behalf. Insurance scheme was much more valuable than the compensation he would
have got under statute. It was held that as rights gained were more beneficial than those
given up, and so the contract was, on balance, for the minor's benefit and therefore
binding.
• Case: De Francesco v Barnum
• A 14-year-old girl entered into a stage-dancing apprentice-ship with De Francesco, under
an agreement which was considerably more favorable to De Francesco than to the girl.
• She was not to marry during the seven years of the apprenticeship; could not take on
professional engagements without his written consent and was completely subject to De
Francesco's commands. He, on the other hand, made no commitment to employ her and
stated that if he did do so it would be at a very low rate of pay. The agreement also
allowed him to send her abroad, and put an end to the agreement, at any time. Court
held that as the agreements was not in favor of minor as a whole therefore it had no
existence and it was cancelled.
• In some cases, the courts have widened the concept of a contract of service beyond the
usual employment situations.
• Case: Doyle V White city Stadium Ltd
• The claimant was a minor who entered into an agreement with the British
Boxing Board to secure a fighter's license. One of the terms of such a license
was that if a boxer was disqualified for committing a foul, he would not receive
the fee for the fight, and only his travelling expenses will be given. Doyle was
contracted to take part in a fight, for which the match fee was £3,000, and the
contract was subject to British Boxing Board rules. He was disqualified for
hitting below the belt, but tried to claim the £3,000 from the promoters and
the Board. Court of law held that clause that match fees will not be given was
not unfair and a fact that opportunity to represent British fighting board was
itself a big opportunity. Further it was held that clause that match fees will not
be given if rules of match were broken was fair and contain no issues.
• Contracts that are voidable by Minor
• There are certain contracts which minor can validly enter but can repudiate them
before achieving age of 18 years OR within reasonable time of achieving 18 years of
age. These contracts are of recurring nature i.e., they require repetitive performance.
For example, lease of property, purchasing of shares, partnership OR loan repayments.
They are voidable because they are potentially onerous contracts to minor.
• Case: Edward v Carter
• A person attempted to repudiate a contract after 4.5 years of ceasing to be a minor.
Person argued that when he made the contract, he was a minor and had no idea that
what contract he was making.
• Court of law held that filing a claim after 4.5 years of ceasing to be a minor is beyond
reasonable time within which case should have been filed.
• If such a contract is terminated before any money is paid or obligations created the contract will be reversed to a
position as if no contract was made. However, a problem can arise where obligations are incurred or money is paid, and
then the minor terminates the contract. In that case if no service was provided then parties will return the amount and
they will be restored to original positions. However, if service was provided by some extent then amounts paid will not
be returned.
• Case: Corpe v Overton
• A minor agreed to enter into a partnership, which was to be formed in the future. He paid a £100 deposit, knowing that
he would lose it if he did not go through with the partnership. Before the partnership was put into operation, the minor
repudiated the agreement. The courts held that he was entitled to have his deposit back, because there was a total
failure of consideration - at the time he terminated the contract, he had received nothing in return for it.
• Case: Steinbergv Scala (Leeds) Ltd
• The claimant, a minor, bought shares in Scala. These shares were not fully paid up, which means that a company issuing
such shares can subsequently demand from a shareholder payment up to the nominal value of the shares: for example,
if a person pay £1 for a share which has a nominal value of £2.50, she can be asked to pay a further E1.50 at a later
stage. Scala did make such a request, and Ms Steinberg paid a further £250. Later Claimant (minor) wanted to repudiate
the contract and claimed her amount back on the basis that she was minor. Court held that this amount cannot be
returned back as service was provided to claimant as company was in operation and it has distributed the profits.
• Contracts that cannot be done by minors i.e., unenforceable contracts
• As per Minors Act 1987 other than contracts which are classified in
category of necessary OR contracts which are voidable, any contract
done by minor will be treated as void. Contracts of Trade OR business
done by Minor are commonly treated as void.
• Case: Cowern v Nield
• A minor was in business of selling hay and straw. It was held that he
was not liable to repay the price of a consignment of hay if he failed
to deliver as minor cannot do trading contracts.
• Remedies against minors
• The rules relating to minor contracts have a potential to create injustice if a minor has
misrepresented himself to be adult. In that case court of law awards remedy of
restitution according to which a person has to return the right of another person. This
means that if minor has unfairly gained any amount from other person then he has to
return it to the claimant. However, if the claimant knew that other party was a minor
and despite the fact, he did a contract then this remedy will not be available.
• Remedy of restitution can be claimed even if fact was known that other party is minor
if that minor has not consumed that good. However, if minor has consumed that good
then remedy of restitution will not be available. Now court may order that claim for
compensation cannot be filed if the fact was known that other party is minor.
• It is to note that remedy of Specific Performance cannot be claimed
against the minor as court will never force minor to give performance.
Another important factor to consider is that concept of specific
performance is based on principle of mutuality i.e., as specific
performance cannot be ordered against minor, therefore minor can also
claim specific performance.
• If an adult realizes that they are making a contract with a minor they
may ask for a guarantee from an adult. In that case the adult who
provided that guarantee will have to compensate the other contracting
party for their loss according to the terms of the guarantee. This
arrangement is frequently used where loans are made to minors.