276301_CASE1.pdf - Name: Risa Khairani Course: Business Law...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.

Name: Risa KhairaniCourse: Business LawMatrixno.: 276301Group: MCASE 1Issue:Whether Good Cloth Company qualifying to sue Richard due to a failure to pay for hisorders?Rule/Law:Regarding toContract of Necessaries Section 69 CA, it mentioned that if the minor makescontract to another especially contract to their necessaries like clothing the contract of relatedparties have to make sure if all of goods or services that given to those minor is suitable for theirliving conditions and also their needs, therefore the party who provided such supplies is entitledto reimbursement from such incapable person’s property.Case:On the case ofNash v Inman, the plaintiff could not claim that the clothes supplied weretruly required as a requirement by those minors. Inman is a minor who study in CambridgeUniversity as an undergraduate students and his father had already provided him with sufficientclothing. So, the contract was void ab intio, according to the court.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 2 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
N/A
Tags
Void, Unenforceable, Ab initio, Good Cloth Company

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture