B ) A CONTRACT FOR NECESSARIES IS A VALID CONTRACT, EVEN IF IS FORMED WITH

A MINOR. DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT BEING THE POSTITION IN

MALAYSIA? DISCUSS

I agree with this statement a contract for necessaries is a valid contract, even if is
formed with a minor as according to section 69 of the contracts act provides that 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. Section 69 however provides specifically for a
claim for necessaries for supplies made to persons incapable of entering into a
contract, that is minors and person of unsound mind. As for In the case of
Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh & Ors, necessaries was the subject of
judicial interpretation. In this case, the Government of Malaysia sued the first
defendant as the promisor and the second and third defendants as sureties for
breach of an agreement entered into by them with the plaintiff for providing a course
of training at a Malayan Teachers’ Training Institution between 1960-1961. The cause
of action was founded on a breach of the agreement by the first defendant to serve
the Government as a teacher for five years after his training. The first defendant
submitted that the contract was void as it was entered into during his minority. The
High Court applied the decision in Mohori Bibee’s case and agreed that the contract
was void. However, it also held that the education and training supplied to the first
defendant fell within the definition of ‘necessaries’ under s69 of the contracts act.
Thus the first defendant(Gurcharan Singh) was therefore liable for repayment of the
sum expended on his education and training. As for conclusion, this shows that a
contract for necessaries is a valid contract even if it formed with a minor.
- a contract with minor or necessaries it is binding
-contract breaks, then you pay the whole amount, just par back the portion of your
bound in gurcharan singh case s10-contract is in forseable
C ) Cloud, who is 17 years old, looks older than his actual age due to his physique
and somber expression. As such, he managed to obtain employment at Shinra
Security and is undergoing training as a personal bodyguard, known as SOLDIER.
The terms of employment stipulated that while under training, Cloud would
receive an allowance of RM 1000 a month and is not allowed to quit a year after
training is over. Otherwise, Cloud would have to pay Shinra Security RM15000 as
penalty.

With his future seemingly secure, Cloud proposed to Tifa, his childhood friend, to
marry her when he turns 19 years old. In the meantime, an engagement party was
held whereby Cloud purchased a diamond ring from Nibelheim Diamond worth
RM3000 for Tifa. Payment for the diamond ring was to be made in 6 monthly
installments. Cloud paid the first installment of RM500.

Cloud’s performance as a trainee impressed B.Diddy, a famous singer, who then

wanted Cloud to be his personal bodyguard. However, just after Cloud finished his
training, Shinra Security terminated Cloud’s employment as they discovered his
real age. As a result, B.Diddy took Sephiroth, another trainee as his personal
bodyguard as he wanted someone under Shinra Security. Cloud was angry at
Soldier Security, stating that there had been a breach of contract and would like to
claim damages. Shinra Security, on the other hand, states that because Cloud is
underage, no contract existed

In addition, the relationship between Cloud and Tifa turned sour after the
termination due to Cloud becoming severely depressed. Cloud decided not to
proceed with the engagement, disappearing from town and stopped the payments
to Nilbelheim Diamond

I) Advise All the parties concerned as to their rights and liabilities, if any

A) Whether Nilbelheim Diamond can sue Cloud for not paying the installement of
the diamond ring?
Nilbelheim Diamond cant Sue Cloud due to fail to pay the installments to the
Nilbelheim Diaomond of the diamond ring that he bought for Tifa. As according to
section 11 of the contracts act sets out the criteria for persons who are competent
to contract where every person is competent to contract who is of the age of
majority according to the law which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is
not qualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. Thus, under the
contracts act, minors are not competent to enter into contracts. As for the most
important effect of agreements entered into by minors is the Privy Council decision
of Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose, the defendant then a minor executed a
mortgage in favour of Brahmo Dutt, a money-lender. Subsequently, the respondent
by his mother and guardian as next friend commenced an action against Brahmo
Dutt, stating that the respondent was underage when he executed the mortgage,
and praying for a declaration that iw was void and inoperative, and should be
delivered up to be cancelled. The Privy Council held that the mortgage executed by
the respondent was void, and the money-lender was not entitled to repayment of
the money on a decree being made declaring the mortgage invalid. It should be
noted that section 10 and section 11 of the indian contracts act do not provide for
the effect of agreements entered into by minors. However, reading both sections
together that a minor is incompetent to contract, the Privy Council held that any
such contract will thus be void and unenforceable. Thus, as Cloud is underage and
minor so then the Nilbelhein Diamond cannot sue Cloud for not paying the
installment.

B) Whether there is a breach of contract between Soldier Shindra and Cloud and
whether Cloud can claim damages?
There is basically a breach of contract between both parties where it comes under
necessaries under section 69 contracts act, as according to s69, if a person
incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to
support, is supplied to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such
supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.
However s69 provides specifically for a claim for necessaries for supplies made to
persons incapable of entering into a contract, that is minors and persons of
unsound mind. In the case of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh, government of Malaysia
sued the first defendant as the promisor and the second and third defendants as
sureties for breach of an agreement entered into by them with the plaintiff for
providing a course of training at a Malayan Teachers’ Training Institution between
1960-1961. The cause of action was founded on a breach of the agreement by the
first defendant to serve the Government as a teacher for five years after his
training. The first defendant submitted that the contract was void as it was entered
into during his minority. The High Court applied the decision in Mohori Bibee’s case
and agreed that the contract was void. However, it also held that the education and
training supplied to the first defendant fell within the definition of ‘necessaries’
under s69 of the contracts act. The necessaries shown in this issue where Shindra
Security given the terms of employment stipulated that while under training, Cloud
would receive an allowance of RM 1000 a month and is not allowed to quit a year
after training is over. And this makes Cloud to be angry when Shindra Security
terminated him after discovering his real age. So Cloud is capable of claiming the
damages under the necessaries.

C) Whether Tifa can sue under exception to general rule on capacity to contract?
There is a several exceptions to the general rule that a person is competent to enter
into a contract at the age of majority of 18 years. Marriage contracts are entered
into by minors. As in for the case of Rajeswary v Balakrishnan, the parties were
Hindus. Defendant breached promise to marry plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed damages
for breach of promise to marry. Defendant argued that he was a minor at that time
of agreement. The court in this case distinguished marriage contracts entered into
by minors from other classes of contracts and in particular excluded them from the
application of the principle laid down in Mohori Bibee’s case where minors are
void. Unlike in this case, where the breach of contract happens as the contracts
with minors are not void and enforceable by law.

- child -s.2young person

Rajeswary under s.10 exception and mohori bibee’s case

II) Would your answer differ if Cloud has misrepresented his age as 21 years old
when buying the ring from Nilbelheim Diamond?why?

Yes because Cloud is competent to enter into contracts as he is not under minors.
This is becasue as according to section 11 every person is competent to contract
who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who
is of sound mind, and is not qualified from contracting by any law to which he is
subject. The age of majority persons in Malaysia is 18 years old as provided in s2 of
the age of majoirty act 1971 as subjects to the provisions of s4, the minority of all
males and females shall cease and determine within Malaysia at the age of
eighteen years and every such male and female attaining that age shall be of the
age of majority. As for in the case of Kandasamy v Suppiah the defendant was sued
upon a promissory note that he executed when he was 18 years old. The issue
arose as to which law should be applied in determining the age of majority of the
defendant, as there was then no enactment subsisting in the Federated Malay
States which defined the age of majority for general purposes. The Majistrate
interpreted the words ‘any law to which he is subject’ in s11 of the contract
enactment 1899 to mean the personal law of the perosn whose contract is in
question. The personal law of the defendant in this case was Hindu Law, which
places the age of majority at 16 years of age. Thus, the Majistrate held that the
defendant was competent to contract ang gave judgement against him. The
defendant appealed and his appeal was allowed. The Court held that the common
law applied and under the common law, the age of majority was 21 years old. In
conclusion, Cloud has reach the age of majority and thus he is competent to the
contracts.
-for fraud, case stolp v wilson