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.


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.


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


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


‘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


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.


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004) at 230 65

Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1


‘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






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


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


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


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


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

http://www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/chenwishart2e/


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

104510701 Minors Rights and Liabilities in the Law of Contract snehil

Documents

Transcript of 104510701 Minors Rights and Liabilities in the Law of Contract snehil