Capacity (minors only) — common mistakes

When analysing a problem question, first identify the type of contract. Is it for goods/services, employment, or something with long-term obligations (like a lease)? This will determine which rule applies: necessaries, beneficial service, or voidable. Always apply the relevant case law (Nash v Inman, De Francesco v Barnum, Steinberg v Scala) to support your analysis.

No. The law, specifically the Sale of Goods Act 1979, states that the minor is only required to pay a 'reasonable price' for necessaries. This may be the same as the contract price, but it could be less if the court determines the agreed price was unreasonably high.

While the general rule is that most contracts are unenforceable against the minor, the law does not exist to allow minors to commit fraud. Under the Minors' Contracts Act 1987, if a minor unjustly acquires goods through an unenforceable contract, a court can equitably order them to return the goods or any property representing them. The contract itself isn't enforced, but the minor cannot simply keep the benefit without consequence.

No. Only 'beneficial contracts of service' are valid. The court will examine the contract as a whole. If it contains terms that are so harsh or oppressive that they outweigh the beneficial aspects (like training or wages), the contract will be deemed non-beneficial and therefore unenforceable against the minor. The case of De Francesco v Barnum is a key example of this.