- 10 Marks
Question
Samuel, aged 16, is the son of Chief Luke Umeh, a multi-billionaire. Two weeks ago, Samuel drove his father’s 2011 model Jeep vehicle to a car exhibition. At the exhibition, he saw a year 2012 model of the same Jeep and entered into a contract with the manufacturers to buy two of the latest Jeep. The two Jeeps were delivered to Samuel and he drives them to his secondary school to impress his school mates. The manufacturers of the Jeep, Manny Auto Engineering Limited, requested payment for the Jeeps but Samuel refused to pay, claiming that he is an infant. The manufacturers are insisting on full payment for the vehicles by Chief Umeh.
Required: Advise the following parties on the implications of their actions:
(i) The manufacturers;
(ii) Samuel; and
(iii) Chief Luke Umeh.
Answer
(i) Manufacturers:
The manufacturers cannot enforce the contract against Samuel due to his status as a minor. Contracts entered into by minors are voidable at the minor’s discretion, meaning they can choose to affirm or reject the contract. In this case, Samuel has chosen to reject the contract, which means the manufacturers can only seek restitution for the vehicles returned to them, rather than enforce payment.
(ii) Samuel:
As a minor, Samuel is not legally bound by the contract for the purchase of the Jeeps. The law protects minors from entering into contracts that could exploit them. Thus, Samuel’s refusal to pay is legitimate, and he has the right to disaffirm the contract. The vehicles are considered luxury items, not necessaries, which means he is not obligated to make payment.
(iii) Chief Luke Umeh:
Chief Umeh, as Samuel’s parent, is not liable for the contract because it is not legally binding on Samuel. Since the contract is voidable, Umeh cannot be held accountable for the payment. However, he can choose to support Samuel in returning the vehicles to the manufacturers.
- Tags: Business Law, Contract Law, Minors
- Level: Level 1
- Topic: Law of Contract
- Series: MAY 2012
- Uploader: Theophilus