ASSESMENT 1

AMIRA BINTI MOHAMAD 2018289986

Issue :

Whether the contract to purchase a second hand Axia’s between Dahlia and Amboi
company is still valid ?

Principle of Law :

General rules for capacity is every parties that involve to the contract must be
competent. Both parties must to carry the contract without any wrong act that can make the
contract void. This means that any parties that involve in contract must have the legal
capacity to do. Other than that in Section 11 CA have said 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 disqualified from contacting by any law to which he is subject. In
this section they mention that who want to competent to the contract they must have 3
elements. Three elements is the age of majority , sound mind and not disqualified from
contracting which is bankruptcy. If both parties was not competent when make a contract,
the contract will be void.

In capacity who will make the contract void is minor and person with unsound mind.
The definition of minor is a person who does not reach the age of majority. Age of majority is
they must 18 age an above if to do a contract. All about age have mention in Age of Majority
Act 1971. While the general rule for minor is all contracts entered into by a minor are void. A
reason why the contracts by minor will be avoid because to protect them from against the
consequences. As we can see in case Tan Hee Juan v The Boon Keat, this cases about the
plaintiff want to transfers of land in favour of the defendant. After the transection happen the
plaintiff applied to the court to change the transfers and for incidental relief. Held the
transaction are void and ordered the restoration of the property to the minor.

The exception to the general rule for minor case is contact of marriage, divorce,
dower and adoption, contract of necessaries, scholar ship , insurance contract and
apprenticeship. Contact of necessaries means a minor is liable on the contract. This contact
have mention in section 69 CA. Example for necessaries id nature of the good/services
supplied, minor actual needs and suited to his condition in life. This necessaries is based on
the position of the particular individual or minor. For example in case Nash v Inman that the
defendant sued by plaintiff to recover the cost of clothes. Held the minor was not liable
because the clothes supplied by the plaintiff were not necessaries.

Application :

According to the case of Tan Hee Juan v The Boon Keat, the contract have do
between dahlia and Amboi company is a void. It is because one of the parties that enter to
the contract was a minor. Dahlia is not in the category that age of majority which is her age
is only 16 years old when she make a contract with Amboi company. as we know in section
11 CA have mention age of majority is 18 years old and above. However in minor case they
have exception but in dahlia case they cannot to used it.
 According to case of Nash v Inman, there is no exception under the contract. This is
because a expectance as contracts to buy necessary thing is not accept . it is because Axia
car is not necessary for Dahlia. The car was not to importance because she still can life like
a normal student even don’t have a car. In this case is according to the section 69 of CA. In
this section they have mention the test of necessaries.

Conlusion :

The conclusion is a contract between Dahlia and Amboi company is a void contract.
So the contract was not legal from start.