NUR MARRISYA BINTI SUMARJO

(2018409462)
AM1104C

Question

Acoop aged 16, is a popular actor and singer has concluded the following contracts: a) A
contract to buy a brand new Honda Accord with Mutiara Kereta Sdn Bhd which costs
RM180,000. b) A contract to buy five suits for his concert at the price of RM 2,000 each from
Abdul Wahub's Collection. c) A contract with a recording company Pelangi Records Sdn Bhd as
their recording artist for two years and the company had agreed to give a professional vocal
training during the term of the contract. Acoop now failed to pay and observe all the above
contracts. Advise him whether he is bound to such contracts.

Answer

ISSUE: Whether Acoop is bound to such contract on the ground of capacity?

PRINCIPLE OF LAW:

Based on the current case which are related to Acoop and all company that has been
made a contract with him, it can be placed under the law of capicity to contract. Capacity of
contract are important under the law of contract in order to form a valid contract. The capacity of
contract can be defined as the contract that implies the legal ability of a person to enter into a
binding contract. Typically, the person must have a capacity to enter into a contract applies to the
capacity to enter into a civil arrangement and the capacity to execute an act. The fundamental
condition for entering into a legal contract is that he / she has a sound mind. In addition, one or
more parties of the contract need to ensure that they will never lack of capacity because it will
lead to a invalid or void contract. In other words, he must be a capable person. Under Section 11
of Contract Act, the capacity of the contract may be strengthened which the section stated that
every person is competent to contract whose age of majority according to the law and is not
disqualified from contracting is a subject.
Under the capity of contract, there is two categories of person that are excluded from the
definition of a person competent to contract which are a minor and an unsound person. Other
than categories of person, there is also some of exceptions in general to void the contract to the
case which are the Age of Majority Act 1971, Contract Act 1950, Insurance Act 1996, Children
and Young Person (Employment) Act 1966 and Person of Unsound Mind (Insane Person). Based
on the current situation, Acoop has been categorized as a minor and under exceptions of Children
and Young Person (Employment) Act 1966.

APPLICATION OF LAW:

On the current situation, Acoop has been categorized as a minor because he is a 16 years
old boy. A minor is a person who has not reached the age of majority. The age of majority that
has been provide under Age of Majority Act 1971 was 18 years old. Those persons under the age
of majority were referred to as ‘infants’. In general rule, a contracts entered into by a minor are
void. This is also include other related transaction such as am agency and land matters. For
example, in a case of Tan Hee Juan v. The Boon Keat which the plaintiff who is a minor
executed transfer of land im favour of the defendant. All of the transfers were witnessed and has
been subsequently registered. Later, the plaintiff and his legal representative applied to the court
for an order setting aside the transfers and for incidental relief. At the end of the case, the court
held that the transavtions were void and ordered restoration of the property to the minor. Other
than this case, there is also one other case which are Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (an
indian case). The Privy Council held that an minor can't make any valid contracts.
Next is the exception of general rules. On the current situation there is two exceptions of
general rules. The first one is the contract act 1950. The act provides for several other exception
to the general rules. there is two category under contract and 1950 which are necessaries and
scholarship. In the current situation, it has been categorized under the necessaries. A minor shall
be responsible for the provisions of the common law. The issue of necessary contracts is dealt
with in Section 69 of the Contracts Act. Within this clause, it is mentioned that a minor can
provide for his or her own needs without the support of the guardian if the minor can provide for
it. But, if the object is luxury, a minor doesn't have to pay for it. The requirements are broad
because they can be concluded not only as essential to life, but also for goods and services
reasonably necessary to meet minor actual requirements, such as medical services, food, shelter,
clothing and education. By referring to the case of the Government of Malaysia v. Ghurcharan
Singh (1971), education was considered necessary. First of all, expensive items are exempt from
the deal. There is some examination of the necessaries where it relies on the real need of the
minor and his or her life condition. In compliance with the above condition, Acoop has
contracted with Abdul Wahub's Collection to buy five suits for his concert at a price of RM2,000
for each suit. In addition, Acoop is a famous singer and actor, so he wants fits. This is not,
however, liable and obligated to pay only if it has the right to do so. This indicates, however, that
Acoop does not have properties to fund suits. As a consequence, the contract is legitimate.
In fact, the Children and Young People (Employment) Act 1966 is another exception to
the general law. In this situation, the act pays for a limited amount of the ability required to enter
into a contract of services. In Section 13, any person who may engage in a contracted activity
under this Act can be considered a complainant except the defendant who is the guardian of the
minor. The person involved would not be entitled to damages even though he or she has violated
the deal. It also determines that a child is a adult below the age of 15 and a young person below
the age of 18. Based on the above condition, Acoop has been contracting their recording artist
with Pelangi Records Sdn Bhd for two years and the organization has agreed to provide qualified
vocal training during the duration of the deal. Referring to the case of Doyle v White City
Stadium (1935), it is a matter about there being an deal to train a boxer, but there was no funds to
pay for the boxer, so that offers the boxer advantages. So, the contract is enforceable. It means
that only Acoop has violated the contract and will not be entitled to damages and that the
contract is legitimate.

CONCLUSION:

In sum, Acoop are not responsible in situation A and B because he does not fulfill the
elements of minor and necessaries. It can be seen in situation A which it can't be fulfill because
Acoop is only a 16 years old boy and did not reached the age of majority which are 18 years old.
For necessaries in situation B, it is also not fulfilled as Acoop can't paid for his five suits from
Abdul Wahub’s collection.
Different from those two situation, in situation C, the contract are avoid. That’s men that
Pelangi Record Sdn Bhd can take legal action through Acoop cause the contract is valid as
Pelangi Record Sdn Bhd is an agency under General Rules.