Minors
s.1 (1) Family Law Reform Act 1969 Prior to the act minors were referred to as infants rather than minors The act changed the age from 21 and under to 18 and under The law on capacity is in no way seeking to prevent young people from making contracts or even to restrict or limit their ability to enter into contracts. The law may seem somewhat patronising or paternalistic but what it is essentially trying to achieve is the protection of the minor from unscrupulous businessmen and others seeking to enforce a contract against the minor. These persons might otherwise take advantage of the minor or exploit them to his own advantage by tying him to contractual arrangements that are really against the minors better interests. Minors contracts are divided into 3 categories. The different categories in essence represent different consequences for the parties to the contract in each case. Contracts that are VALID and therefore ENFORCEABLE against the minor Contracts that the minor may enter but can also back out of it required and which are therefore VOIDABLE Contracts that are UNENFORCEABLE against the minor and which in practical terms therefore may be difficult for him or her to make.
The purpose of such a rule is clear; it will allow minors to enter into contracts that are beneficial to them. However at the same time, it prevents unscrupulous businesses from taking advantage of their youth and inexperience. Necessary in this context is a very specific legal term; it does not have to mean the same as necessity. The courts have established a two-part test for determining what a necessary is and therefore what will be enforceable again the minor in the individual case The goods or services must be necessary according to the station in life of the particular minor The goods or services must also suit the actual requirements of the minor at the time when the contract is formed. Nash v Inman 1908 Cambridge undergraduate bought 122 clothes including 11 fancy waistcoats The court was prepared to accept that the supply of such clothing could be appropriate to the station in life of the undergraduate The contract was still held to be enforceable because facts showed that the minor was already adequately supplied with clothes Therefore these new ones could not be classed as necessaries.
Peters v Fleming 1840 Rings, pins and a watch chain were held to be necessaries for an undergraduate with a rich father, as it was customary at the time for such possessions to be had by the rich.
Law Commission (Working Paper no, 81) Concept of necessaries should be abandoned and replaced with a more narrowly defined concept of necessaries Not pursued though.
Doyle v White City Stadium 1935 Here the principle was extended to cover a contract between a minor who was a professional boxer and the British Boxing board of control. Under the agreement the minor would lose his purse (payment for the fight) if he were disqualified. The agreement was held to be binding on the minor since it was to encourage not only clean fighting but also proficiency in boxing, and was therefore for the benefit of the minor. The principle can be applied to a contract for services as well as to a contract of service.
Chaplin v Leslie Frewin 1966 In this case the principle was extended to a contract to write an autobiography. This was held to be similar to a contract for services and was beneficial to the minor, and so was binding upon him. It follows that, since contracts or necessaries and beneficial contracts of service are enforceable against the minor, if the goods or service are not necessaries or if the contract of service is not beneficial then these contracts are voidable by the minor. Proform Sports Management v proactive Sports Management and Another 2006 (The WAYNE ROONEY CASE) Wayne Rooney had signed a management and agency agreement with the claimant when he was 15, lasting for 2 years. He did so without any legal advice. Rooney was already contracted to Everton at this point. Rooney was approached by another agent and 6 months before the agreement was due to end, he wrote to the claimant giving notice of his intention not to renew the agreement when it expired. After taking legal advice Rooney then terminated the arrangement. The claimant argued that the other agent had induced a breach of its contract with Rooney. D argued that it was not illegal to induce termination of a contract that was voidable by a minor. The agreement between Rooney and the claimant was so that the claimant could represent him in future transfer deals. The court held that the contract with the claimant was not a contract of apprenticeship, education and service substantially to Rooneys benefit and therefore he was entitled to avoid it. Therefore the defendant was not liable.
Contracts of marriage settlement Such contracts are voidable by the minor because of their potentially onerous nature Nevertheless if the minor choose not to repudiate the contract then he will obviously be bound by all of the obligations falling under the contract. Whether the minor has repudiated in sufficient time to avoid the contract is a question of fact to be determined by the court in each case. Edwards v Carter 1893 A minor sought to repudiate an agreement under a marriage settlement by which he agreed to transfer the money he would inherit from his fathers will to the trustees under the settlement He tried to repudiate more than a year after his fathers death and four and a half years after actually reaching the age of majority. His argument that he was incapable of repudiating until he knew the full extent of his interest under his fathers estate failed. The court held that his repudiation was too late in time to be reasonable. LORD WATSON- if he chooses to be inactive, his opportunity passes away, if he chooses to be active the law comes to his assistance.
Where the minor repudiates the contract before any obligations under it have arisen, then no particular problems arise and the contract is simply at an end. The minor cannot be sued on any obligation that would have arisen after this point. However where obligations have already arisen before this point then the position is not so clear cut. Academic opinion seems to favour the view that the minor is bound by debts arising from the contract prior to the date of repudiation. Where the minor has transferred money under the contract then it would appear that this is not recoverable unless there is a complete failure of consideration. Steinberg v Scala 1923 A minor was allotted company shares for which she had made the payment due for the allotment and for the first call. Since she was unable to meet the payments for the further calls she sought to repudiate the contract and also to recover the money which she had already paid over to the company. The court was happy to accept the repudiation The meant that he name could be removed from the register of shareholders and she would bear no further liability for the company. However the court was not prepared to grant return of her money There was no failure of consideration Even though she had received no dividends or attended any meetings of shareholders, she had received everything she was bound to under the contract She had been registered as a shareholder.
Misrepresentation of age
R Leslie Ltd v Sheill 1914 Minor fraudulently misrepresented his age in order to get a load from the claimant. The court held that at common law the claimant could not recover the amount of the loan since this would have the effect of enforcing an unenforceable contract However the court also identified that had the contract involved goods then the minor would have been obliged in equity to return them. Restitution would not apply in the same way to the money lent unless the very coins or notes lent were still identifiable in the hands of the minor.
Restitution
s.3 (1) Minors Contracts Act 1987 Supersedes the role of equityWhere a person has after the commencement of this Act entered into a contract with another and 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 claimant any property acquired by the defendant under the contract, or any property representing it.