104510701 Minors Rights and Liabilities in the Law of Contract snehil
-
Upload
snehil-sharma -
Category
Documents
-
view
96 -
download
0
Transcript of 104510701 Minors Rights and Liabilities in the Law of Contract snehil
Contract Law Assignment
Abstract
This assignment examines the law of contract in general and provides the
opportunity to study the law of contract from a minor’s perspective. This includes the
study of offer, acceptance, voidable contracts and consideration, and their relevance
to contracts that minors are party to, and breach of contracts and remedies available
to each contracting party. It analyses the need to draw a balance between
protecting the minor against his inexperience and protecting the contracting adult
who has acted in good faith. This is achieved by looking at the enforceability of
goods and services contracts that minors are party to. In general, contracts entered
by a minor are not binding, unless he ratifies them on reaching majority although
there are exceptions and qualifications to these rules, namely that contracts to
provide necessary goods and services and contracts of service for the minor’s
benefit are enforceable. The assignment also examines the minor’s liability for bank
loans and any remedies that may be available to the lender.
This is carried out by looking at: legislation, including the Minors’ Contract Act 1987
which was enacted to improve the rights of an adult who makes a voidable contract
with a minor; case law, and academic opinion in legal journals which argues that the
law relating to minors and contracts can be unclear at times. The assignment then
concludes on the issue that the rules relating to necessaries can trap those acting in
‘good faith’ and a better balance is needed between protecting the minor and the
interests of those of the other party, to the extent that the courts are now more
concerned with producing justice in individual cases rather than laying down general
rules.
Contract Law Assignment
Question
Minor Upset, who is 17 and lives in an isolated rural village, has recently been
offered a job as a software engineer in the nearest town which is twenty miles from
the village. As there is no bus or train service, he agreed to buy a second hand car
from Plusitup Motors Ltd for £3,000 having successfully negotiated a bank loan for
£5,000 from the Recession Bank Ltd. Two days later on discovering that he would
be able to get a lift to and from work from a neighbour, he informed Plusitup Motors
Ltd that he no longer needed the car and would neither collect it nor pay for it.
He also purchased a personal stereo system and a set of golf clubs from General
Trading Plc., a large retail store in the nearest town. He has paid for the stereo
system but not for the golf clubs. He is now claiming that due to a fault in the stereo,
an irreplaceable tape of great sentimental value has been destroyed.
Minor Upset has now realised that his financial calculations were wrong and he will
be unable to re-pay the bank loan, upon so informing the bank, Minor Upset has
been threatened with court proceedings.
Advise all the above parties as to their legal positions in respect of the above
transactions in the law of contract.
Contract Law Assignment
12th November 2010
Our Ref: CL1211/10
Re: Contracts
Dear Minor Upset
Further to your recent consultation at this office we are writing to inform you of your
legal position and that of the other contracting parties. There is no need at this point
to go into detail about the formation of a contract as you are a minor1 and this fact
will have an impact on the enforceability and outcome of each contract.
In general, contracts entered by a minor are not binding, unless he ratifies them on
reaching majority.2 There are currently exceptions to the rule, and consequently
contracts to provide necessary goods and services and contracts of service for the
minor’s benefit3 are enforceable. ‘The rationale of the law’4 is to protect minors
‘against their liability in cases of contract’5as it is obviously unfair to treat all minors
like adults in contract law. On the other hand a balance must be reached as there
can be unfair consequences for the adult who has contracted in ‘good faith’6 with the
minor. Legislation now addresses both these issues through two general principles:
‘the law must protect the minor against his inexperience’7 and ‘the law should not
cause unnecessary hardship to adults who deal fairly with minors.’8 The Minors’
1 Family Law Reform Act 1969 s1, and people age 18 and under are also referred to as ‘minors’ in Sale of Goods
Act 1979 s 3 and Minors’ Contract Act 1987 and Minors’ Contracts (NI) Order 1988 2 Chen-Wishart, W. Contract Law (3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) at W1.1
3 Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009) at 70 4 Stone, R and Cunnington, R Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law (Routledge-Cavendish, Oxon, 2007)
at 322 5 Jennings v Rundall (1799) 101 E.R. 1419 Lord Kenyon at 1421 6 McKendrick, E Contract Law (7
th ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) at 348
7 Peel, E Treitel The Law of Contract (12
th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007) at 567
8 Ibid at 567
Contract Law Assignment
Contracts Act 1987 ‘was introduced to improve the rights of an adult who makes a
voidable contract with a minor’9 ‘if it is just and equitable to do so’10 wherein the
‘seller’ now has ‘a limited measure of redress’11.
‘Minors are not bound by contracts into which they enter’12 with the exception of
necessaries and contract of employment for his benefit but he can be held liable in a
number of ways which we will examine in due course. Before 198713 ‘all contracts
for goods supplied were absolutely void, the only exception being contracts for
necessaries.’14 (Necessaries being ‘articles fit to maintain the particular person in
the state, station and degree in life in which he is;15 the only way that a minor can be
bound by a contract is if the goods are necessaries as quoted in both Burnard16 case
and Ryder17 case.) Prior to the 1874 Act ‘at common law, irrespective of statute, the
contracts of an infant were voidable except such as were necessarily to his
prejudice; these last were void.’18 The 1874 Act led to ‘sanction a cruel injustice.’19
The common law is now in place again as the act has been repealed by the Minors’
Contracts Act 1987.
9 Contract Law and Minors (1993) Cons. L. Today 16 (10) Supp IF iii-iv at iii
10 Minors’ Contracts Act (1987) s3 (Minors’ Contracts (NI) Order 1988 is NI equivalent)
11 Brownsword, R Smith & Thomas: A Casebook on Contract (12
th ed Sweet & Maxwell, 2009)
at 735 12
McKendrick, E Contract Law (7th
ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) at 349 13
Before Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 14
Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1 Cozens-Hardy MR at 5 15
Peters v Fleming 151 E.R. 314 Parker B at 316 16
Burnard v Haggis 143 E.R. 360 at 364 17
Ryder v Wombwell (1868-69) L.R. 4 Ex. 32 Willes J at 38 18
Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1 Buckley LJ at 11/12 19 Valentini v Canali (1) [1890] LR 24 QBD 166 Lord Coleridge CJ at 167
Contract Law Assignment
‘The law’s strongly protective attitude towards children’20 meaning that ‘even a
fraudulent child can only be made to ‘give back’ what is left.’21
This will be considered as we now deal with your liability in each contract separately.
20 Chen-Wishart, W. Contract Law (3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) Online at W7 21 Ibid at W7
Contract Law Assignment
Issue 1: Contract with Plusitup Motors Ltd
In the case of the car as a minor you are liable for goods sold and delivered to you22.
Before the enactment of Sale of Goods Act 1979, it was unclear whether the goods
must be necessary at the time of sale as well as at the time of delivery.’23 In fact it
was recognised that there were no cases ‘in which an infant has been held liable for
the purchase of goods being necessaries when the goods have not been sold and
delivered.’24 This is supported by the view that goods must be necessary when
delivered.25 The car was a necessary when you agreed to buy it as there was no
public transport to take you to your work, and similar cases can be applied, for
example, the ‘hire of a car to fetch luggage from a station six miles away’26 and a
‘racing bicycle’27 were both held to be necessaries. It would no longer be a
necessary at the time of delivery as you made alternative travel arrangements to
work, therefore if s3 (3) of Sale of Goods Act28 is applied, the car is not a necessary
and consequently you are not bound by the contract. This argument is supported in
both common law29 and legislation.30
Another aspect you may consider is that as you have decided to not buy the car after
agreeing with Plusitup Motors Ltd it must be considered whether you are in the
22
Sale of Goods Act s3 (2) 23
Chitty on Contract General Principles Volume 1 at 676 24
Miles, JC ‘The Infant’s Liability for Necessaries’ (1927) 43 LQR 389 at 389 25
Winfield (1942) 58 LQR 82 in which Winfield discusses necessaries under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 26
Chitty on Contract General Principles Volume 1 at 678 referring to Fawcett v Smethurst (1914) 1 SALK 279 27
Ibid at 676 referring to Clyde Cycle Co v Hargreaves (1898) 78 LT 296 28
Sale of Goods Act 1979 s3 (3) ‘ “necessaries” mean goods suitable ...to his actual requirements at the time of the sale and delivery’ 29
Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1 Fletcher Moulton LJ held the minor was liable because he had been supplied and not because he had been contracted. 30
Sale of Goods Act 1979 s3 (2) ‘Where necessaries are sold and delivered [to a minor]... he must pay a reasonable price for them.
Contract Law Assignment
position to revoke your agreement. The principle in Payne v Cave31 is that ‘an offer
may be withdrawn at any time up until it is accepted’32 but as the agreement was
already formed this is not applicable. Another consideration is that if the contract
‘lacks certainty it is incomplete’33 this could be applied to your case if no date was
set for completion of the contract with the car,34 although in most cases the
uncertainty arises around the price for the goods.35
Section 3(1) of Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 ‘provides... means of ordering children to
make restitution’36 where the contract is not binding. Accordingly, ‘the court may, if it
is just and equitable to do so’, order you to transfer to the seller ‘any property
acquired’ by you under the contract or ‘any property representing it’.37
Issue 2: Contract with Recession Bank Ltd
You borrowed money to buy a car which was a necessary at the time of agreement.
This leads on to the next issue your contract with Recession Bank Ltd. As a minor
you are not liable for any loans38, as the contract is therefore unenforceable, a
remedy may be available to the bank. If the money was fraudulently obtained by a
minor39 he could be held not to be liable in equity (the only remedy available) to
repay it if the money cannot be traced. If it can be traced or if the money is still in his
31
Payne v Cave (1789) 3 Term Rep 148 32
Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009) at 19 33
Peel, E Treitel The Law of Contract (12th
ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007at 54 34
Harvey v Pratt (1965) 1 WLR 1025 also applies in Scammel v Nephew Ltd v Ouston (1941) AC 251 and May Butcher v R (1934) 2 KB 17n 35
Scammel v Nephew Ltd v Ouston (1941) AC 251 and May Butcher v R (1934) 2 KB 17n 36
Chen-Wishart, W. Contract Law (3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) at W8 37
Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 s 3 (1) 38
Halsbury’s Laws of England 21 Loans to provide necessaries 39
R Leslie Limited v Sheill [1914] 3 K.B. 607
Contract Law Assignment
possession he would be liable to return it.40 This decision was made in the Sheill
case and was ‘almost universally vilified’.41 In your case the loan was not
fraudulently obtained therefore a remedy in equity is not applicable.
Liability in restitution at common law is ‘expressly reserved by s3(2) of Minors’
Contracts Act 1987.42 You could be ordered to hand over the property bought with
the money under s3 (1) of 1987 act. This could result in ‘an order to transfer...
property’ ‘even in the absence of fraud’43although you will not be obliged to use your
own assets that are separate to the goods or money. If you have spent all the
money received in a contract, under s3(1) of the 1987 Act the court cannot make an
order, but if there is an amount left you can be ordered to transfer the remainder.44
Now it is ‘open to a creditor to induce a former minor to repay a previously
unenforceable loan, after majority.’45 You are not liable for the loan either if, contrary
to s50 of Consumer Credit Act 1974 the bank canvassed you for the loan,46 but we
would need to know whether this is the case before pursuing this issue.
In common law if the bank lends you money to pay for necessaries, it can only
recover the amount of the loan that was used to purchase necessaries, and only if
you still have them.47 This case is still applicable to day as it is the common law
reverted to since the enactment of the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987
40
Peel, E Treitel The Law of Contract (12th
ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007) at 584 41 Clarke, RW ‘Contracts for the Sale of Non-Necessary Goods; Vendor’s Remedies Against an Infant Purchaser’
(1981-1983) 7 U. Tas. L. Rev. 85 at 93 42
Peel, E Treitel The Law of Contract (12th
ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007) at 585 43
Ibid at 584 44
Treitel, GH An Outline of the Law of Contract (6th
ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004) at 232 45 Holroyd, J ‘Young People – The Minors’ Contracts Act 1987’ LS Gaz 29 Jul 84 (2266) 46
‘Contract Law and Minors’ (1993) Cons L Today 16910) Supp IF iii-iv 47
Marlow v Pitfeild (17119) 2 Eq Ca Ab316 pl6
Contract Law Assignment
Issue 3: Contract with General Trading Plc
By accepting your offer48 to purchase the golf clubs and personal stereo, the seller
was assenting to ‘all the terms of the offer.’49 Any agreement needs to be supported
by consideration50 as a person ‘must show that he or she has bought the...
promise’51. You have provided executed consideration for the personal stereo as you
paid for it at the time of offer and acceptance, therefore it is valid consideration. In
the case of the golf clubs there is executor consideration as you have not yet paid for
them, although you had intended to do so at the time of offer and acceptance. This
is also valid consideration. Steyn questions why the law will not sanction a contract
if there is no consideration even though the parties ‘seriously intend to enter legal
relations,’52 and Lord Denning has also questioned whether consideration is an
important part of the contract formation.53 Despite this consideration is a necessary
component of the formation of a contract. It is a commercial agreement54 therefore
there will be a presumption that you intended to create legal relations with the seller
which, again is required to form a contract.
As a minor you can only be bound in a contract for ‘the supply of necessary goods
and services.’55 The golf clubs and personal stereo are not necessaries, as they are
neither ‘food, drink, clothing, lodging and medicine’56 nor goods ‘for real use’57, and
48
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (1953) 1 QB 401 and Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394 49
Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009) at 12 50
Treitel, GH An Outline of the Law of Contract (5th
ed. Butterworths, London, 1995) 51
Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009) at 9 referring to Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v Selfridge (1915) AC 847 52
Steyn, J ‘Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men’ (1997) 113 LQR 433 at 437 53
Lord Denning ‘Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Consideration’ (1952) 15 MLR 1 ‘The law for centuries has been that an act done, at the request of another, express or implied, is sufficient consideration to support a promise.’ 54 McKendrick, E Contract Law (7
th ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)
55 Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009) at 70
56 Chitty on Contract General Principles Volume 1 at 674
57 Ibid at 675
Contract Law Assignment
would be deemed to be items for ‘comfort or convenience only’58. In this instance
you are not bound, but there may be some remedy available to the seller as a minor
‘cannot simply walk from voidable contracts with the goods for which they have not
paid’59. The Minors’ Contract Act 198760 ‘was enacted to improve the rights of an
adult who makes a voidable contract with a minor.’61 The golf clubs were provided to
you on credit, as you are refusing to pay that debt, although the items are not
necessaries and therefore not bound in contract, the law of contract does provide
‘sanction’62 for the seller. As the personal stereo is allegedly faulty S14 of Sale of
Goods Act 197963 applies to the condition of the goods. When a minor pays for
goods that are not deemed to be necessaries, ‘he can only get money back in the
same circumstances an adult would’.64 Therefore you will have to resort to
legislation for the return of the money for the personal stereo.
Property acquired could be ordered to be returned to the seller, for example in Nash
v Inman65 the minor could have been ordered to return the waistcoats to the tailor.,
58
Chitty on Contract General Principles Volume 1 at 675 59 ‘Contract Law and Minors’ (1993) Cons L Today 16910) Supp IF iii-iv 60 Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 (NI equivalent – Minors’ Contracts (NI) Order 1988) S3 (1) Where- (a) a person
(“the plaintiff”) has after the commencement of this Act entered into a contract with another (“the defendant”), and (b) the contract is unenforceable against the defendant (or he repudiates it) because he was a minor when the contract was made, the court may, if it is just and equitable to do so, require the defendant to transfer to the plaintiff any property acquired by the defendant under the contract, or any property representing it.’ 61
‘Contract Law and Minors’ (1993) Cons L Today 16910) Supp IF iii-iv 62 Smith, SA. The Limit’s of Contract Law - Atiyah’s Introduction to Law of Contract (6
th ed. Oxford University
press, Oxford, 2006) at 4 63 Sale of Goods Act 1979 s14 (2) ‘Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied
term that the goods under the contract are of satisfactory quality. (2A) ...goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory (2B) ..the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (amongst others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods- (a) fitness for all purposes... (c) freedom from minor defects... (d) durability (and it extends to NI) 64
Treitel, GH An Outline of the Law of Contract (6th
ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004) at 230 65
Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1
Contract Law Assignment
‘even though the minor was not guilty of fraud... and even though there would...be no
restitution at common law.’66
Issue 4: Contract with local college
In the event that you paid £2000 to the local college for an NVQ in Basket weaving.,
if this is held to be a necessary ‘contract of service’67 to you it will be enforceable. As
any service can be held to be a necessary if it satisfies the tests already stated in
relation to necessary goods.68 As a person can leave school at age 16 ‘it is only
reasonable’ that you should be ‘able to seek employment before reaching the age of
18’69 or ‘to fit’ yourself for ‘future trade or profession.’70 If it is beneficial it is
enforceable;71 whereas if it is not, it will be unenforceable.72 A contract for
unnecessary education is no more binding than a contract for unnecessary goods’73
as was illustrated in Hamilton v Bennett.74 The NVQ is neither unfair75 nor for your
benefit76 therefore it is not a necessary and not a binding contract. As it is not a
binding contract you may be liable to return the money to the bank.
66
Peel, E Treitel The Law of Contract (12th
ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007) at 581 67
Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009) at 70 68
Peel, E Treitel The Law of Contract (12th
ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007) at 569 69
Stone, R and Cunnington, R Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law (Routledge-Cavendish, Oxon, 2007) at 327 70
Chitty on Contracts Volume 1 General Principles (30th
Ed Thomson Reuters (Legal) Ltd 2008) at 680 quoting Clements v London and North Western Railway Company [1894] 2 Q.B. 482 Kay LJ at 491 71
Clements v London and North Western Railway Company [1894] 2 Q.B. 482 72 De Francesco v Barnum (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 430 and Doyle v White City Stadium Limited [1935] 1 K.B. 110
and Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd and Others (1966) Ch 71 (lord Denning dissenting at 91) 73
Chitty on Contracts Volume 1 General Principles (30th
Ed Thomson Reuters (Legal) Ltd 2008) at 683 74
Hamilton v Bennett (1930) 94 J PN 136 as referred to in Chitty on Contracts Volume 1 General Principles (30
th Ed Thomson Reuters (Legal) Ltd 2008) at 683
75 Leslie v Fitzpatrick 3 QBD 229
76 Clements v London and North Western Railway Company [1894] 2 Q.B. 482 and Rex v. Hindringham 6 TR 557
Contract Law Assignment
It was held that the contract was beneficial to the plaintiff and not at all to the minor,77
therefore it was not enforceable, whereas in another case78 it was held to be a
binding contract as it was beneficial to the minor. If applied to the current situation,
De Francesco could be applied as it is not beneficial for you to undertake the NVQ
as you are currently under offer of a job as a software engineer and as you claim you
cannot afford to repay the loan to the bank, it would be reasonable79 of you to return
the £2000 fees to the bank.
In Roberts v Gray80 the minor was ‘held liable for repudiating the contract when it
remained partly unperformed’ and the necessaries involved were largely educational.
Stocks v Wilson81 it was held that ‘the defendant was not liable on the contract, or in
tort for deceit, but was liable to account for the £130 obtained for the goods.’82
Conclusion
The Law relating to minors and contracts can be unclear at times, and Elsevier
argues that despite legislation83 the common law provides that children are liable on
contracts for ‘necessaries’.84 Rules relating to necessaries can trap those acting in
‘good faith’85 and a better balance is needed between protecting the minor and the
interests of those of the other party. In 1982 the Law Commission proposed that all
contracts should be binding on people aged over 16 and enforceable if younger than
77
De Francesco v Barnum (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 430 Fry LJ at 443 78
Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd (1935) 1 KB 110 79
Steyn, J ‘Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men’ (1997) 113 LQR 433 80
Roberts V Gray [1913] 1 K.B. 520 81
Stocks v Wilson (1913) 2 KB 235 82
Stone, R and Cunnington, R Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law (Routledge-Cavendish, Oxon, 2007) at 350 83
Sale of Goods Act 1979 84
Elsevier, R ‘Children, Contracts and the Internet’ (2000) 2 EBL 9, 8 85
McKendrick, E Contract Law (7th
ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) at 348
Contract Law Assignment
that, but not against them.86 Treating unequal people equally only exacerbates
inequality87 so minors do need to have separate contracting legislation, as long as it
also protects the adults.
Courts are now more concerned with producing justice in individual cases rather
than laying down general rules.88 Steyn believes89 in using the reasonable man
concept as ‘an objective theory of contract’ as ‘it promotes certainty and predictability
in the resolution of contractual disputes’90 The difference between opinions is that
Atiyah’s theory would result in some uncertainty although of course all eventualities
would be covered and the courts would seek to ensure that there was no unfairness
and that any sense of injustice or unfairness in contracts would be resolved either
through legislation or through common law.
We will happily represent you in any future proceedings, and we look forward to
hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
86
Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009) at 75 87
Ibid at chp 1 88
Ibid at chp 1 quoting Atiyah (1979) 89
Steyn, J ‘Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men’ (1997) 113 LQR 433 at 433 90
Ibid at 433
Contract Law Assignment
Bibliography
Books
Brownsword, R Smith & Thomas: A Casebook on Contract (12th ed Sweet &
Maxwell, 2009)
Chen-Wishart, W. Contract Law (2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)
Chen-Wishart, W. Contract Law (3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)
Online www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/chenwishart2e/ accessed 10 November 2010
at 12.42
Chitty on Contracts Volume 1 General Principles (30th Ed Thomson Reuters (Legal)
Ltd 2008)
Elliott, C & Quinn, F Contract Law (7th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009)
McKendrick, E Contract Law (7th ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)
Peel, E Treitel: The Law of Contract (12th ed. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007)
Smith, SA. The Limit’s of Contract Law - Atiyah’s Introduction to Law of Contract (6th
ed. Oxford University press, Oxford, 2006)
Stone, R and Cunnington, R Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law (Routledge-
Cavendish, Oxon, 2007)
Treitel, GH An Outline of the Law of Contract (5th ed. Butterworths, London, 1995)
Treitel, GH An Outline of the Law of Contract (6th ed. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2004)
Articles
Clarke, RW ‘Contracts for the Sale of Non-Necessary Goods; Vendor’s Remedies
Against an Infant Purchaser’ (1981-1983) 7 U. Tas. L. Rev. 85
‘Contract Law and Minors’ (1993) Cons L Today 16 (10) Supp IF iii-iv
Elsevier, R ‘Children, Contracts and the Internet’ (2000) 2 EBL 9, 8
Holroyd, J ‘Young People – The Minors’ Contracts Act 1987’ LS Gaz 29 Jul 84
(2266)
Lord Denning ‘Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Consideration’ (1952) 15
MLR 1
Miles, JC ‘The Infant’s Liability for Necessaries’ (1927) 43 LQR 389
Contract Law Assignment
Steyn, J ‘Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men’
(1997) 113 LQR 433
Cases
Burnard v Haggis 143 E.R. 360
Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd and Others (1966) Ch 71
Clements v London and North Western Railway Company [1894] 2 Q.B. 482
Doyle v White City Stadium Limited [1935] 1 K.B. 110
De Francesco v Barnum (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 430
Fawcett v Smethurst (1914) 1 SALK 279
Hamilton v Bennett (1930) 94 J PN 136
Harvey v Pratt (1965) 1 WLR 1025
Jennings v Rundall (1799) 101 E.R. 1419
Leslie v Fitzpatrick 3 QBD 229
Marlow v Pitfeild (1719) 2 Eq Ca Ab316 Pl 6
May Butcher v R (1934) 2 KB 17n
Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1
Payne v Cave (1789) 3 Term Rep 148
Peters v Fleming 151 E.R. 314
R Leslie, Limited v Sheill [1914] 3 K.B. 607
Roberts V Gray [1913] 1 K.B. 520
Ryder v Wombwell (1868-69) LR 4 Ex
Scammel v Nephew Ltd v Ouston (1941) AC 251
Stocks v Wilson (1913) 2 KB 235
Valentini v Canali (1) (1890) LR 24 QBD 166
Legislation
Family Law Reform Act 1969
Halsbury's Laws of England accessed 5 November 2010 at 11.12am
Infants’ Relief Act 1874
Minors’ Contracts Act 1987
Minors’ Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
Sale of Goods Act 1979