Contract Law Essays Help : Minors' Contracts

Contract Law Cases referred to in this section:
Northern Western Ry v McMichael (1850) 5 Exch 114
Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1, CA
Roberts v Gray (1913) 1 KB 520, CA
Clements v London and North Western Ry Co (1894) 2 QB 482
De Francesco v Barnum (1890) 45 Ch D 430
Sir WC Leng & Co Ltd v Andrews (1909) 1 Ch 763
Doyle v White City Stadium (1935) 1 KB 110
Denmark Publications Ltd v Boscobel Productions Ltd (1967) 111 SJ 715

For the purposes of contract law, a minor is a person under the age of 18 years (Section 1, Family Law Reform Act 1969). Minor’s contracts are voidable by the minor (not void: i.e. he has the option of voiding them) but are binding on the other party. Voidable contracts may either:

  • bind the minor unless repudiated during whilst he is a minor or within reasonable time of attaining age – until repudiation, the minor is bound by the contract and its obligations (Northern Western Ry v McMichael (1850) 5 Exch 114)
  • not bind the minor unless he ratifies them after attaining age but bind the other party. Such contracts are unenforceable .
The only types of contracts that fully bind minors are contracts for necessaries, including contracts of apprenticeship and education. The relevant law is the Infants Relief Act 1875 for contracts made prior to 9 June 1987 and the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 for contracts entered into after that date (Section 1 of the Infants Relief Act 1874, which rendered 'absolutely void' all contracts entered into by infants for the repayment of money lent or to be lent, was repealed by the Minors' Contracts Act 1987 ss 1(a), 4(2), 5(2) as regards contracts made on or after 9 June 1987. Where a guarantee is given in respect of an obligation of a party to a contract made on or after 9 June 1987 and the obligation is unenforceable against him, or he repudiates the contract, because he was a minor when the contract was made, the guarantee is not for that reason alone unenforceable against the guarantor).

Where ‘necessaries’ are sold and delivered to a minor, according to Section 3 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, they must pay a reasonable price for them (Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1, CA; Roberts v Gray (1913) 1 KB 520, CA). Such goods will include those that are ‘suitable to the condition in the life of the minor… and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery’. Although these provisions cover necessities such as food, the term necessaries covers many other things and the burden of proving that goods are necessaries lies with the supplier (Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1).

Contracts for service, education and apprenticeship will be binding on minors so long as the undertaking is to their advantage (Clements v London and North Western Ry Co (1894) 2 QB 482; De Francesco v Barnum (1890) 45 Ch D 430; Sir WC Leng & Co Ltd v Andrews (1909) 1 Ch 763). Such principle has been extended to cover similar situations where, for example, a minor’s autobiography is published (Roberts v Gray (1913) 1 KB 520; Doyle v White City Stadium (1935) 1 KB 110; Denmark Publications Ltd v Boscobel Productions Ltd (1967) 111 SJ 715).

This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.

order-now

Visitors have also looked at...

  • 1Law Essay Scams

    Essay writing scams can be hard to spot.
    Click here to find out how to avoid the essay scams

  • 2Essay writing in the press

    Find out what the press say about essay writing in the 21st century.

  • 3 Meet the Law Essays UK Team

    Find out more about the individuals that provide this first class essay writing service.