Issue 1: whether Julie is a minor or not.
Issue 2: whether the contract which Julie entered with Gwyn is a contract of necessaries that is binding.
Issue 3: whether the contract which Julie entered into with the local theatre was a contract of beneficial
nature that is binding.
in relation to the first issue
family Law Reform Act 1969 states that the age of 18 is the age of majority and any age below 18 will be
regarded as a minor. And all contracts shall be voidable to the minors except for contracts of supply of
necessaries and contracts of service.
On the facts, the age of Julie is 15, which is below the age of majority, thus Julie is minor and only
contracts of necessaries and contracts of service are binding to her.
in relation to the second issue
for this issue it is required to discuss whether 5 dance outfits is a necessary to Julie.
Section 3(2) of SOGA 1979 states that ‘necessaries’ are referred as goods suitable to the condition in life
of the minor or the other person concerned and to his actual requirements at time of sale and delivery.
When deciding whether a contract is one of necessaries, the court will determine by considering
subjectively on whether the goods or services are necessary to the minor. However if the minor already
has the goods of necessary, the buying of more of the goods deems the goods of necessaries not
necessary, this principle is stated in Nash v Inman.
On the facts, Julie was a dancer studying in a performance school. Thus the 5 dance outfits are goods of
necessary for Julie this is due to Julie studying in an environment which require Julie to wear a dance
outfits on a daily basis. Thus the 5 dance outfits are necessary to Julie and thus the contract which Julie
entered into with Gwyn is a contract of necessaries that is binding to her.
Thus Julie is advised that she is liable for the five dance outfits.
in relation to the third issue
for this issue, it is required to discuss whether the contract which Julie entered into with the local
theatre was a contract of beneficial nature which is binding to Julie.
The case of Doyle v White City Stadium illustrated the rule that contracts of service which is beneficial in
nature to be binding to the minor. However the case of De Francisco v Barnum provides that even if the
contract is beneficial in nature, it can still be not binding to the minor if it contains any terms which is
harsh.
On the facts, Julie hired as a dancer in a local theatre is beneficial in nature as this contract is necessary
and beneficial to her future career as a dancer. And in addition, the contract did not contain any harsh
Issue 2: whether the contract which Julie entered with Gwyn is a contract of necessaries that is binding.
Issue 3: whether the contract which Julie entered into with the local theatre was a contract of beneficial
nature that is binding.
in relation to the first issue
family Law Reform Act 1969 states that the age of 18 is the age of majority and any age below 18 will be
regarded as a minor. And all contracts shall be voidable to the minors except for contracts of supply of
necessaries and contracts of service.
On the facts, the age of Julie is 15, which is below the age of majority, thus Julie is minor and only
contracts of necessaries and contracts of service are binding to her.
in relation to the second issue
for this issue it is required to discuss whether 5 dance outfits is a necessary to Julie.
Section 3(2) of SOGA 1979 states that ‘necessaries’ are referred as goods suitable to the condition in life
of the minor or the other person concerned and to his actual requirements at time of sale and delivery.
When deciding whether a contract is one of necessaries, the court will determine by considering
subjectively on whether the goods or services are necessary to the minor. However if the minor already
has the goods of necessary, the buying of more of the goods deems the goods of necessaries not
necessary, this principle is stated in Nash v Inman.
On the facts, Julie was a dancer studying in a performance school. Thus the 5 dance outfits are goods of
necessary for Julie this is due to Julie studying in an environment which require Julie to wear a dance
outfits on a daily basis. Thus the 5 dance outfits are necessary to Julie and thus the contract which Julie
entered into with Gwyn is a contract of necessaries that is binding to her.
Thus Julie is advised that she is liable for the five dance outfits.
in relation to the third issue
for this issue, it is required to discuss whether the contract which Julie entered into with the local
theatre was a contract of beneficial nature which is binding to Julie.
The case of Doyle v White City Stadium illustrated the rule that contracts of service which is beneficial in
nature to be binding to the minor. However the case of De Francisco v Barnum provides that even if the
contract is beneficial in nature, it can still be not binding to the minor if it contains any terms which is
harsh.
On the facts, Julie hired as a dancer in a local theatre is beneficial in nature as this contract is necessary
and beneficial to her future career as a dancer. And in addition, the contract did not contain any harsh
