Phing, 17 years old daughter of a wealthy businessman is currently studying at a University College at Kelana Jaya. She bought a luxury car Audi R8 worth RM 900,000. The car has now been delivered but she is unable to payfor it. Firstly, Phing is a 17 years old teenager which also known as minor. Minor is a person who legally underage; who has not yet attained the age of majority, and which are denied the ability to fully and freely contract. In Capacity of Section 11 define a person who is of the age of majority, sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting under any law. Age of majority is recognized as above 18 years of age as stated in the Age of Majority Act 1971. Below are similar with the case, which case 1: Ryder v. Wombwell (1868), the defendant, an infant, having an income of only 500 Pounds per year was supplied a pair of crystal, ruby and diamond solitaries and an antique silver goblet. It was held that these things could not be considered to be necessaries. It was observed that certain things like ear rings for a male, spectacles for a blind person, or a wild animal, cannot be considered as necessaries. For another case which case 2: Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) the plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghose, while he was a minor, mortgaged his property in favour of the defendant, Brahmo Dutt, who was a moneylender to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000. The actual amount of loan given was less than Rs. 20,000. At the time of the transaction the attorney, who acted on behalf of the money lender, had the knowledge that the plaintiff is a minor. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant stating that he was a minor when the mortgage was executed by him. Held mortgage was void and inoperative and the same should be cancelled. In the Phing case, she is unable to pay for luxury car Audi R8 which is already delivered to her. Under the Sale of Goods Act (1979) Phing is against the section 32 of the Act goes on to say that unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions. This means that the seller shall be ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer in exchange for the price, and the buyer shall be ready and willing to pay the price in exchange for possession of the goods. However, before look on the section 32 of the Act we also have to refer the Section 3(2) of the Act. Under this section, necessaries are defined as the goods are suitable to the condition in life of the minor or other person concerned and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery. “Necessaries” are things which are essential to the existence and reasonable comfort of the infant. Luxurious articles are excluded. Thus, what may be termed as necessaries depends on the nature of goods supplied as well as the infant’s actual needs.In the next case which case 3: Fawcett v Smthurst (1914) the court ruled that a minor is not bound by a contract for the hire of a car, although it was a necessary service, as the contract included the terms which make him liable for damage to the car ‘in any event’, whether or not the damage in his fault. Where there is a binding contract for necessaries, the minor is only bound to pay a reasonable price for them. Next case is relevant with luxury cases, case 4: Chapple v. Cooper (1844) a minor whose husband had recently died contracted with undertakers for his funeral. She later refused to pay the cost of the funeral, claiming her incapacity to contract. The court held her liable to pay the bill. The funeral was for her private benefit and was a necessary as she had an obvious obligation to bury her dead husband. In the next, case 5: Nash v Inman (1908) a Cambridge undergraduate, the son of an architect, was supplied with clothes, including 11 ‘fancy waistcoats’, to the value of $122. The cloth could be appropriate to the station in life of the undergraduate, but the contract was not enforceable because the minor...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document