Words: 981
The court held that the contract was void and ownership of the land had to be returned to the plaintiff. Plaintiff He Juan who is a minor said that contract that involved a minor is said to be void. So, there is no contract at all (Slideshows Inc, 2012). Thus, based on the rule and these cases, the interact entered into by Mucky with Reach Mobile Co for a 12-month smart phone plan is not binding on him. However, there is an exception to that because the contract he entered could be a contract for necessaries.
An example of exceptions to the general rule Is the contracts for necessaries. In Section 69 of Contracts Act 1950, if a person, Incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he Is legally bound to support, Is supplied by another person with the necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from he property of such incapable person (Lengthening & Vinaigrette, 2009). There are 2 fold tests to determine if a contract entered by a minor is a contract to necessaries.
Firstly, the status of status, at which if the subject matter suits the minor’s station of life, such as his family background, the contract is binding on him. Secondly, the test of need, whereby if the minor already has enough supply of the item in question and it is not a need to him, the contract is not binding on him. In the Nash v Inman (1908) case (Krishna, Racial, & Vergers. C, 2009), Nash entered into a contract to supply Inman with 11 fancy waistcoats. Inman was a minor who was already adequately supplied with clothes by his father.
When Nash claimed the cost of these clothes Inman seek to rely on lack of capacity and succeeded at first Instance. The court held that ‘An Infant, Is Incapable of making a contract of necessaries, the law will imply an obligation to repay him for the services so rendered, and will enforce that obligation against the estate of the infant. ‘ So the contract is void (Clarke], 2010). The general rule to this is that if the contract for necessaries is binding, the minor must pay a reasonable price, not the full untactful price stated.
Based on the two fold test, the smart phone plan suits his status of status whereby in his station of life, he is a son of a wealthy entrepreneur. Besides, he needs the smart phone for his studies. In conclusion, the contract is a contract for necessaries and is binding on Mucky. He needs to pay Reach Mobile Co a reasonable price, not the full contractual price of RMI 500. If he does not pay, he can be blacklisted by the company. Question 1 (b) The legal issue and problem is whether Mucky has a contract with the State According to Section 1 1 of Contracts Act 1950, those who are of the overspent. GE of majority according to the law to which he is subject, have sound mind, and not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject, are competent to contract (Krishna, Racial, & Vergers. C, 2009). Besides, the Age of Majority Act 1971 states that the age of majority is 18 years and above, and anyone below that age would be regarded as a minor (Lengthening & Vinaigrette, 2009). Mucky, who is 17 years old, is regarded as a minor and is not competent to enter any contract.
Based on the general rule, the contract entered into by a minor is not binding on him ND is void ABA monition (Krishna, Racial, & Vergers. C, 2009). In the Mohr Beebe v Doormats Goose (1903) case (ACH), the plaintiff loan a sum of money to the respondent, a minor, that secure on a house which was leased to the appellant (Slideshows Inc, 2012). Following that, the minor filed a suit to set aside the mortgage ((Krishna, Racial, & Vergers. C, 2009)). The council held that the contract is formulated with a minor is void (Slideshows Inc, 2012).
Other than that, the Tan He Juan v The Boon Keats (1934) case (ACH), the plaintiff Tan He Juan had transferred ownership of a piece of land to the defendant The Boon Keats. The court held that the contract was void and ownership of the land had to be returned to the plaintiff. Plaintiff Tan He Juan who is a minor said that contract that involved a minor is said to be void. So, there is no contract at all (Slideshows Inc, 2012). Thus, the contract entered into by Mucky with the State government for a state loan should not be binding on him.
However, there is an exception to that because the contract he entered is a contract of scholarship whereby loan is within the section related. Based on Section 4 of Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976, for scholarships or loans given by he government or a statutory body or an educational institution, the scholarship agreement entered into by a minor is valid (Krishna, Racial, & Vergers. C, 2009). For example, in the Government of Malaysia v Churchman Sings & Or’s case (Lengthening In conclusion, the contract is a valid contract of & Vinaigrette, 2009). Scholarship and is binding on Mucky.
He needs to pay the State government the amount he borrowed when it is due. The problem or legal issue to this question is whether a valid contract is formed between June, Yuan and Joanne with Phil, and whether Phil is obliged to pay them. In Section 2(d) of Contracts Act 1950, it is stated that when, at the desire of the promissory, the promises or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise (Lengthening & Vinaigrette, 2009).