Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Intention and formal requirements for contracts - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Minors have limited capacity to enter into a contract and have additional protections on them. The Age of Majority Act 1985 states that a minor is any person under 18 or if a person marries under that age they cease to be a minor. At common law, the age of majority was 21. Section 2 SOGA covers contract for sale of goods with minors. Certain services may be considered necessary under common law. Contracts that are binding i.e. contracts for necessaries and beneficial services.
      - Contracts for necessary goods- necessary means something that is genuinely required by a minor so that there is no danger of exploitation if the agreement is enforced and the court will only enforce it on reasonable terms:
        
        Ryder v Wombwell- jewelled cufflinks not a necessity;
        
        Chapple v Cooper: funeral expenses for a spouse were held to be necessaries. Necessary was defined in that case as those things without which an individual cannot reasonably be expected to live without like food, raiment, lodging and the like.
        
        Nash v Inman: 11 fancy waistcoats not necessary;
        
        Prokopetz v Richardsons Marina: motor boats were not necessary.
        
        First Charter v Musclow: vehicle used for work or domestic purposes may be necessary.
        
        Soon v Wilson: books may be necessary.
        
        Helps v Clayton: legal advice may be necessary;
        
        Fawcett v Smethurst: hire of a motor car was necessary but the terms were onerous and therefore it was not beneficial to the minor.
      - Contracts for beneficial services-these may be enforceable- exemption for contracts of service originated to allow minors to enforce apprenticeships etc. these are only enforced if beneficial to the minor:
        
        Doyle v White City Stadium: minor boxes under British rules he will be bound by them where overall they are beneficial to him.
        
        De Francesco v Barnum: minor undertook to sing but other party undertook no commitment to provide work or teach the minor yet restrained the minors freedom in other ways, like prohibiting her from marrying.
        
        Chaplin v Frewen: when onerous terms are balanced by benefits like royalties, the contract will be upheld;
        
        Proform Sports Management v Proactive Sports Management; At common law, if a contract is not for the supply of necessaries or is not a beneficial contract of service, the contract is voidable at the instance of the minor. If the contract benefits the minor but also imposes recurring obligations then they can be avoided by the infant but require him to repudiate the contract by some positive act before turning of age or within a reasonable time thereafter.
        
        The second category is complicated by Section 2 Infants Relief Act 1874 which makes absolutely void all contracts (other than necessaries) where the infant agrees to purchase goods (distinct from services) or receives a loan. There is a LRC report 1988 to reform this area of law, but this has not been forthcoming from the legislator.