A minor's liability for necessaries (Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.3)
Callum Reid, aged 17, has just started an apprenticeship with a building firm in England. He has no safety boots or waterproof work jacket, both of which he needs for site work. He buys a pair of safety boots and a work jacket from a workwear shop on account for £400, which is £150 more than the usual price of such items. They are delivered to him and he wears them at work. He has not paid, and the shop sues him for £400.
Which of the following best describes Callum's liability?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: Callum must pay a reasonable price for the boots and jacket, as they are necessaries sold and delivered to him.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A minor must pay a reasonable price for necessaries sold and delivered to him, meaning goods suitable to his condition in life and actual requirements at the time (SGA 1979 s.3).
A minor's liability for necessaries (Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.3)
Section 3(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides that where necessaries are sold and delivered to a minor, he must pay a reasonable price for them. Section 3(3) defines necessaries as goods suitable to the condition in life of the minor and to his actual requirements at the time of the sale and delivery. Callum is an apprentice who needs safety boots and a work jacket for site work and had none, so the goods are suitable to his condition in life and his actual requirements. They were sold and delivered to him. He is therefore liable, but only for a reasonable price, not the contract price of £400. On the facts the usual price is £150 less, which indicates what a court is likely to find reasonable.
Why A is wrong: Section 3(2) makes a minor liable for necessaries only to the extent of a reasonable price, not the agreed contract price.
Why C is wrong: A minor's contracts are not all void; a minor must pay a reasonable price for necessaries sold and delivered to him.
Why D is wrong: Ratification at 18 is relevant to some contracts made by minors, but liability for necessaries arises under s.3(2) without it.
Why E is wrong: Parents are not liable for their child's contracts merely because the child is a minor; the statute places liability on the minor.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Damages for negligent misrepresentation and the reverse burden of proof (Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2(1))
Which of the following best describes Tom's position if he claims damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967?
Excluding liability for negligence in a business contract (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.2)
Which of the following best describes the effect of clause 9 under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?
Part payment of a debt (Foakes v Beer)
Which of the following best describes whether Gareth can recover the £3,000?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.