Contracts for necessaries

The first major exception to the rule as to unenforceability relates to contract for ‘necessaries’. The reasoning here is that a total rule of unenforceability would act to the minor’s disadvantage. If traders knew that any contract with a minor would involve the risk of the minor deciding not to honour it, they would be reluctant to enter into such contracts at all. As a consequence, the minor might have difficulty acquiring the basic requirements of everyday life, such as food or clothing. In reality, of course, the majority of transactions of this type take place on the basis of the simultaneous exchange of goods and payment, where there is little or no risk to the trader. In relation to more complicated transactions, and particularly those which do not involve payment on the spot, the question of whether the contract concerns ‘necessaries’ will still be important.

The concept of necessaries, which covers both goods and services, was explained in some detail in Chappie v Cooper, where it was held that a widow who was a minor was liable in contract for the cost of her husband’s funeral. According to Alderson B. in this case, ‘necessaries’ include not only things which are absolutely necessary for survival, but also all those which are required for a reasonable existence. Food and clothing are obviously covered, but so are medical assistance and education. Once the goods or services are of a kind which can be put in the general category of ‘necessaries’, there is then a further question as to whether they are appropriate to the particular minor. Whether a silk dress can count as a necessary will depend on the minor’s normal standard of living. Items of ‘mere luxury’, however (as opposed to ‘luxurious articles of utility’), will not be regarded as necessaries, nor will articles bought as gifts for others normally be so regarded. The approach of the common law is confirmed as far as goods are concerned by s 3 of the Sale of Goods Act (SGA) 1979, which states:

... ‘necessaries’ means goods suitable to the condition in life of the minor and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery.

As will be noted, this adds to the test stated above the question of whether the minor is already adequately supplied with goods of this kind. The same limitation almost certainly applies to services. Its application in relation to goods is illustrated by Nash v Inman. The plaintiff was a tailor, and the defendant an undergraduate at Cambridge University, who had ordered 11 fancy waistcoats. When the plaintiff sued for payment, the defendant pleaded lack of capacity. The plaintiff argued that the waistcoats were in the category of necessaries. There was no doubt that they were among the class of things (that is, clothing) capable of being necessaries. It was up to the plaintiff to prove, however, that the defendant was not already adequately supplied with items of this kind, which he was unable to do. It should be noted that this case made it clear that the trader who is ignorant of the minor’s situation will not be protected. The decision is made by looking at matters entirely from the minor’s point of view.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-30