CAPACITY TO

CONTRACT
 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
 Minors: Age of majority
 Every person who has attained the age of majority i.e. 18 is competent to make a contract
 S10-all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent
to contract for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not hereby
expressly declared void.
 S 2- provides that all persons in Malaysia attain the age of majority at 18.
 A minor is a person whom is below the age of 18 and is incompetent to make a contract.
 Although the CA 1950 does not expressly stipulate the effect of an agreement entered into
by a minor, the courts in Tan Hae Juan v Teh Boon Kiat, Government of Malaysia v
Gurcharan Singh, and Leha bte Jusoh b Awang Johari bin Hashim, held that the
effect of sections 10 and 11 CA 1950 render all agreements void following the privy
council in Mohari Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghose.
 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
 Minors: Age of majority

 All contracts entered into by a minor is generally void and a minor cannot sue or be
sued under such contracts
 In England, the law on contracts by minors based itself on 2 principles:
 First , and most important , is that the law must protect the minor against his
inexperience , which may enable an adult to take unfair advantage of him or to induce
him to enter into a contract which though in itself is unfair, is simply improvident.
 Secondly, the law should not cause unnecessary hardships to adults who deal fairly
with minors.

 A contract entered into by a minor in England is either valid or voidable.

 If the subject matter of the contract is necessaries , the contract is valid
 If they are not necessaries, the law treats the contract as voidable at the minor’s option .
 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
 Minors: Reimbursement of necessaries
 Although all contracts entered into by minors, including a contract for necessaries are void, however, S 69 CA- allows a
person who has supplied necessaries to the minor to receive reimbursement from the property of the minor.
 Claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting or on his account
 S69:- if a person , incapable of entering into a contract , or anyone whom is legally bound to support , is supplied by
another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person, who has furnished such supplies is entitled
to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.
 The word necessaries are neither defined in the Act nor under the SOGA (Malay States) Ordinance 1957.
 All that is said under S 69-what is supplied must be suited to the minor’s condition in life.
 Necessaries are things which are essential to the existence and reasonable comfort of that infant e.g food and clothing,
shelter, education or training in a trade and essential services.
 That “condition of life” of the minor means his social status and his wealth.
 Whatever is supplied to the minor, the goods must be suitable to his actual requirements and conditions of life.
 Luxurious articles excluded
 3 piece suits and caviar (an expensive fish dish) are not all likely to be held by the courts are necessaries
 Secondly, ordinary clothes also will not be considered to be necessaries if the infant already possesses adequate clothing.
 What may be termed as necessaries depends on the nature of goods supplied as well as the infants actual needs.
 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
 Scarborough v Sturzaker
 Sturzaker , a minor periodically rode his bike to work for a distance of about 15 km.
 He bought a new bike and traded in his old one as part payment before the delivery of the new one.
 He then attempted to avoid the contract.
 Held: - the bike was a class of goods that could be classified as a necessary.
 In this case, it was in fact a necessary.
 See: Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh & Ors
 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
 Minors: Necessary Goods
 S 2 of the English SOGA 1893, defined necessary goods as goods suitable to the conditions in life of such
infant and to his actual requirements at the date of the sale and delivery.
 Whether a particular article is a necessary or not depends upon 2 factors:-
 1. Condition in life of the infant; and
 2. His actual requirements at the time of the sale and delivery
 If he is already sufficiently provided for with goods of the kind in question then, even though the supplier does
not know this fact, the price is not recoverable.

 In Nash v Inman
 A savile Row Tailor sued for the price of clothes worth 22 pounds 19 s 6 d (including 11 fancy waistcoats at 2
guineas each) supplied to an infant undergraduate at Cambridge.
 The court held; the action must fail because the tailor had not adduced any evidence that the clothes were
suitable to the condition in life of the minor and that the minor was not already adequately supplied with
clothes.
THE END….