Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Explain
A minor is a person who has not reached the age of majority, which is the age
of majority are 21 years. The general rule is that all contracts entered into by a
minor are void. The contractual incapacity of a minor is regarded as a
protection of the minor against the consequences of its own actions and
presumed lack of judgment in matters. In the Tan Hee Juan v. Teh Boon Keat
applying the decision in Privy Council that established in the Mohori Bibee
case agreed that contracts by a minor are void.
In the case, Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose where the plaintiff,
Dharmodas Ghose, while he was a minor, mortgaged his property in favor of
the defendant, Brahmo Dutt, who was a money lender to secure a loan Rs.
20000. At the transaction the attorney of the defendant was fully aware that
the plaintiff was incompetent to contract. Dharmodas paid only Rs. 8000 and
refused to return the rest of the money. With his mother as a next friend,
Dharmodas commenced an action again Brahmo Dutt, stating that at the time
of contract that he was a minor, so the contract is void and he is not bound to
return the money. The Court granted relief to the plaintiff. An Appeal was filled
but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court. After this appeal Brahmo
Dutt died. An Appeal was filed in the Calcutta High Court by his executors.
The Age of Majority Act creates the exceptions to the rule that all contracts
entered into by the minors are void.
(a) The capacity of any person to acts in matters relating to marriage, divorce,
dower and adoption.
(b) The religion and religious rites and usages of any class of persons within
Malaysia.
(c) Any other written law fixing the age of majority.
The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 applicable to non-muslim
requires persons under 21 years to obtain the written consent of their parents
or guardians. The main concern of this chapter is the age at which a person is
capable of making a valid contract.
In Rajeswary & Anor. Vs. Balakkrishnan & Ors (1958) it was held that a
contract to marry entered into by a minor was not void.
The parties to this action were Ceylonese Hindus. The second defendant,
father of the first defendant, through a go between approached the second
plaintiff father of the first plaintiff in order to arrange a marriage between his
son and the second plaintiffs daughter. After a few days, members of the
families met and drew up written agreement with provisions for a dowry of
RM3000 and RM5000 for breach of the agreement known as the penalty
clause to effect the marriage.
Subsequently, the defendant repudiated his promise to marry the first plaintiff.
After that, the first plaintiff claim damages against the first defendant for
breach a promise of a marriage. The first defendant pleaded that the
incapacity of the first plaintiff to enter into the contract to marry she being a
minor. The marriage contracts entered into minors are different from other
classes of contracts and it is does not within the principle that laid down in
Mohori Bibee and the contract is valid.
Under the section 69 of the Contracts Acts merely embodied the common law
of England which as follows,
Charles must pay the restaurant for the food consumed because even though
he is a minor, food is necessary to maintain himself. Sect 69 CA 1950 states, if
a person is supplied with necessaries, he must pay for it. This principle was
also stated in the English case of Nash v Inman.
In this case, a minor, Inman ordered 11 waistcoats from a taylor and later
refused to make payment. The Court held that the waistcoats were not
necessaries to his station in life and therefore the contract was void. For
Charles to be made liable, it must be proven that the goods or services
supplied were necessaries to his station in life.
However there are exceptions to the general rule. On the facts of this case,
Charles has received 3 piece suits for RM3,000. If this is a contract for
necessaries, Charles will be bound by the contract. (S69 CA 1950, and the
English case of Nash v Inman) There are 2 interpretations to necessaries.
Literal interpretation implies the bare essentials of life. The legal interpretation
includes the minors particular station in life. If Charles is the son of a
prominent businessman, then the situation would be different, then Charles
would be liable. If the legal interpretation is used, they can be considered as
necessaries, because Charles is the son of a rich businessman and therefore
he must pay for them.
In view of this section, Charles is bound by the contract and therefore he must
repay the money received under the scholarship. This principle was also
illustrated in the case of Government of Malaysia v Gucharan Singh.
However there are situations in which the minor will be held accountable for
contracts made in exceptional situations and will be binding on the person
executing such a contract even though he may not meet the legal
requirements.