Minor Mental Competent in Escape of Contract Liability Order Instructions: circumstances in which a minor mental incompetent or drunk person may escape liability for a contract

Minor Mental Competent in Escape of Contract Liability Sample Answer

Explain the circumstances in which a minor mental in competent or drunk person may escape liability for a contract. Also explain the circumstances in which they or their guardian may be bound or become bound by the contract

 Introduction

The parties to a binding promise that’s meant to give rise to legal obligations must have contractual capacity. All persons are regarded by law to have contractual capacity unless the law states that such persons lack contractual capacity. Minors, incompetent persons such as persons of unsound minds and intoxicated persons have limited contractual ability as relates to the case of R Leslie v Sheill [1914] 3 KB 607.

Besides the contracts for necessaries and other binding contracts unless they have been repudiated the rest of contracts that have been signed by minors under common law are void.  Section 2 of the Infant Relief Act (1874) in the UK makes all the loan contracts, debts and contracts for the supply of goods that are not necessaries to be absolutely void and cannot be ratified.

Minors may escape liability when they contract for necessaries which are reasonable like for instance food, shelter, medicine and reasonable clothing items as per the Minors Contracts Act (1987) UK.

Luxurious items are not considered as necessaries as in the case of Ryder v Wombell (1868) LR 4 Exch, 32. Mental or drunk persons may escape liability if at the time of contracting they were not in their right minds or they were not lucid Chapple v Cooper (1844) 153 ER 105.

When a minor deviates from the terms of a contract like for instance misusing a rental car or using it for unauthorized purposes hence negligently damages the car then it would be involve the guardian on charges of tortuous liability as in the case of Burnard v Haggis (1863) 143 ER 360 and Jennings v Rundall (1799) 101 ER 1419.

The guardians of minors and persons of unsound minds maybe bound if the contracts are not for the supply of necessaries like food, clothing or other basic needs Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1.

Minor Mental Competent in Escape of Contract Liability References

Burnard v Haggis (1863) 143 ER 360

Chapple v Cooper (1844) 153 ER 105.

Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1.

Ryder v Wombell (1868) LR 4 Exch, 32.

Minors Contracts Act (1987) UK

Infant Relief Act (1874)

Jennings v Rundall (1799) 101 ER 1419

R Leslie v Sheill [1914] 3 KB 607