Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Persons Exam Cases (Minority (Capacity to contract (Wood v Davies,…

- - - - Minors can still commit an act of provocation even though doli et culapa incapax
  - - - Emancipation is confusing partly because unclear if word entails complete emancipation, or merely guardian consenting to minor engaging in particular occupation without assistance (terminological inexactitude)
        
        In this case, the resp's father has either: 1) tacitly released him from protestas or 2) at least allowed the respondent to engage in the activities of everyday life (such as drawing cheques from his own bank account)
        
        Although resp still lives with his mother, he pays to live there
        
        Can't determine whether the resp has been emancipated by what the resp himself says, must look to the facts
        
        There is no contractual difference for the resp whether he is living and working (as he is) or carrying on a business on his own
        
        It is too narrow to say that emancipation only applies to the transactions related to that business
    - - About whether the plaintiff had locus standi, claim that he was a minor at the time of instituting action - plaintiff says he was emancipated
      - There is a difference between tacit emancipation and being deserted and neglected
      - Emancipation must be proven by the person alleging it
      - Boberg thinks the courts have confused 2 distinct institutions: 1) tacit emancipation (where parental power is completely terminated) and 2) general authority (where guardian gives general authority to do certain things)
      - If relative emancipation exists, then locus standi would only be pro tanto (meaning about issues which fall into the scope of emancipation)
      - Here, the evidence is only sufficient to prove general authority
        
        Alternatively, that only has locus standi as it relates to employment
    - - About whether the defendant had locus standi - was 15 at the time of trial - but plaintiff said he had been emancipated (was being sued for cheques that had been withdrawn from an account opened by his father in his name)
        
        CA: if emancipated for certain contracts, also have locus standi for those contracts
        
        But in this case, he was employed (wasn't operating his own business), therefore unclear if this is sufficient for emancipation
        
        However, the bank account had nothing to do with his employment, was basically operated by father
        
        Objection about locus standi upheld