Zofi vs Kiki Mini Market

Zofi vs Kiki Mini Market 1.0 Issue Presented: 1) Whether there is a valid contract between Zofi and Kiki Mini Market.? 2) Whether they are liable under the contract and can be sued.? 3) Whether Zofi has right to refused the offer according to law of contract.? 2.0 Law: Contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties where each assumes a legal obligation that must be completed. The principle legislation of law of contract is the Contract Act 1950. There are 8 elements to form a valid contract which are offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, certainty, formalities, legal capacity, and free consent. But the relevant element in this case is Legal Capacity. Offer is a statement or other indication made by the individual which prepared to enter into a contract with another on certain terms. It is provided under Section 10(1) of Contract Act 1950, a contract is void if one or both parties lack the legal capacity to contract. According to Section 11 of Contract Act 1950, every person is competent to contract if he is age of majority. There are three categories of persons who do not have the capacity to enter into a contract and they are minor or infants, an insane person and a person disqualified by the law such as bankrupt. Furthermore, a minor or an infant is a person who is below the age of majority. Under the Section 2 of the age of Majority Act 1971, the age of majority is 18 years. With regards to the minor’s contractual capacity, the general rule is that all contracts entered into by a minor are void, because to protect the minor. In the case of Tan Hee Juan v The Boon Keat (1934), the plaintiff (minor) had received the purchase price for the transfers of land to the defendant. However, when the court made an order declaring the transfers void, the court refused to order the minor to refund the purchase price paid by the defendant. In this case, types of contract related is Contract for Necessaries. Contract for necessaries is another exception to the general rule. A minor who enters into a contract for necessaries is liable for the contract. According to Section 69 of the Contracts Act 1950, ‘if a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he 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 contract will be valid if the minor has been supplied with articles which are considered as necessary to the minor’s actual requirements and suited to the minor’s condition in life. For example, food, shelter, clothing, medical services, and education. According to the case of Nash v Inman (1908), the defendant who was a student ordered certain clothes from the plaintiff (a tailor) includes the waistcoats. The defendant refused to make the payment to the plaintiff. As the evidenced showed that the defendant’s father already supplies adequate suitable clothes for the defendant, so the plaintiff was failed in his action. The court held that since the clothes supplied by the plaintiff were not necessities, the minor should not be liable for the clothes. According to the case of Government Malaysia vs Gurcharan Singh (1971), the government sued the first defendant (the minor) and the second and third defendants (the sureties) for breach of contract. The amount of claim was RM11,500, being the sum spent by the Government for the minor’s education. At the time when the contract was made, the first defendant was a minor. The court held that, the contract was void but since education was “necessaries”, the minor was liable for the repayment of a reasonable sum spent on him. The amount ordered as payment to the Government was RM2,683 because the minor has served the Government for three years and ten months out of the contractual period of five years. 3.0 Application: Based on explanation above, in this case of Zofi was full under element of legal capacity. This also can be referred to the case of Tan Hee Juan v The Boon Keat (1934), which has almost similar fact to the present case. According to the fact Zofi is only 15 years old student and also a minor. As we all know that all contract entered by minor are void and is not enforceable by the law under Section 2(g). This can be referred to the Section 2 of the Age of Majority Act 1971. The case that will be discuss is first and foremost Zofi intend to buy 5 handsets worth RM5000 from Kiki mini market. This is considered as mere luxury for Zofi because a student doesn’t need to have 5 handphone at one time. The contract could be void. The following case can be referred in Section 69 of the Contracts Act 1950. Secondly, Zofi intend to bought a bicycle worth RM150. Bicycle is necessary for Zofi because a student may need a bicycle to go to a school and the price is also considered as affordable for a student. The contract is valid. Thirdly, Zofi intend to bought food stuffs with the amount of RM400. Food stuffs could well be “necessaries” but if the minor is already adequately stocked, they may be treated as mere luxury. The following case is Nash v Inman 1908. So, the contract will be considered as void. 4.0 Conclusion: As the conclusion, a minor does not have capacity to enter a contract and not liable for any losses or damage. The contract made by the minor is also not valid as they are considered as minor. However, they can be sued and liable under the contract of law under certain circumstances.