CAPACITY

Question 1

CAPACITY

Answer 1

MUST SOUND MIND
AGE 18
NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM ENTITY INTO CONTRACT

Question 2

SECTION 10(1) CONTRACT ACT 1950

Answer 2

ALL AGREEMENT ARE CONTRACT IF THEY MADE BY FREE CONSENT OF PARTIES COMPETENT TO CONTRACT, OR LAWFUL CONSIDERATION AND LAWFUL OBJECT, AND ARE NOT HEREBY EXPRESSLY DECLARED TO BE VOID

Question 3

SECTION 11 CONTRACT ACT 1950

Answer 3

ANY PERSON IS COMPETENT TO CONTRACT WHO IS AGE OF MAJORITY, ACCORDING TO THE LAW TO WHICH HE IS SUBJECT, WHO IS SOUND MIND, AND NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM CONTRACTING BY ANY LAW TO WHICH HE IS SUBJECT

Question 4

GENERAL RULES OF CAPACITY

Answer 4

CONTRACT MADE BY MNOR IS VOID. MINOR CANNOT SUE OR BE SUED UNDER VOID CONTACT. HOWEVER, THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION WHICH IS THE CONTRACT INVOVLED MINOR IS VALID AND CAN SUE OR BE SUED UNDER SUCH CONTRACT.

Question 5

CONTRACT FOR NECESSARIES

SECTION 2 ENGLISH SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893

SECTION 69 OF CA 1950

Answer 5

“GOODS SUITABLE TO THE CONDITION OF THE LIFE SUCH AN INFANT AND TO HIS ACTUAL REQUIREMENT OF THE DATE AND DELIVERY”

ALLOW A PERSON WHO HAS SUPPLIED NECESSARIES TO THE MINOR TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE MINOR.

“IF A PERSON INCAPABLE OF ENTERING INTO CONTRACT, OR ANYONE WHOM IS LEGALLY BOUND TO SUPPORT, IS SUPPLIED BY ANOTHER PERSON W NECCESSITIES SUITED HIS CONDITION IN LIFE, A PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED SUCH SUPPLIES MUST BE REIMBURSHED BY THE PROPERTY OF SUCH INCAPABLE PERSON.”

IN THE CASE OF NASH V. INMAN (1908)

SAVILE ROW SUED FOR THE PRICE CLOTHES WORTH E22 19S 6D SUPLLIED TO AN INFANT UNDERGRADUATED CAMBRIDGE THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE TAILOR HAD NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE CLOTHES DOES NOT SUITABLE WITH TO THE CONDITION IN LIFE OF THE MINOR.

IN THE CASE CHAPPLE V COOPER (1844)

HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF A FUNERAL ORDERED BY AN INFANT WINDOW FOR HER LATE HUSBAND

Question 6

CONTRACT OF SERVICES OR APPRENTICESHIP

Answer 6

A CONTRACT UNDER WHICH A MINOR OBTAINS EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR A PROFESION.

IN THE CASE OF DE FRANCESCO V. BARNUM (1890)

A MINOR IS BOUND BY BENEFICIAL CONTRACT UNLESS THAT CONTRACT APPEAR UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE. IN THIS CASE, THE PLAINTIFF ENTERED THIS CONTRACT UNDER MINOR AGED 14 YEARS OLD, A 7 YEARS OF DANCER APPRENTICE WITH THE TERM OF
1) CANT MARRIED
2)DOES NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT
3) CANT DANCE PROFESSIONALLY FOR ANOTHER PERSON UNLESS UNDER CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF
THE PLAINTIFF SUED THE DEFENDANT FOR THE DAMAGES BECAUSE MADE A CONTRACT TO DANCE FOR THE DEFENDANT. THE COURT HELD THAT THE CONTRACT IS UNREASONABLE HARSH AND CANT BE ENFORCE AGAINST THE MINOR.