FIRM SUES MINOR

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 788, 8 October 1929, Page 7

FIRM SUES MINOR

NOT LIABLE UNDER HIREPURCHASE CONTRACT WRONG AGE IN AGREEMENT From Our Own Correspondent NEW PLYMOUTH, Today. Stiing a young' man under 21 years of age, the firm of Lightband and Wann claimed £42 3s, being unpaid instalments on a motor-cycle, and £29 and £l3 3s for repairs and accessories from Bertram Ivor Standfard in the Magistrate’s Court at Stratford recently. Yesterday Mr. IT. W. Tate, S.M., gave judgment for the defendant.

In May, 1927. defendant was working on a farm with a man named Burr, who had a motor-cycle for which he was paying by instalments. It was arranged that defendant should take it over from Burr, and this arrangement was effected by defendant entering into an agreement with Lightband and Wann. In this agreement he was described as being of full age, whereas he was in fact a minor. Defendant pleaded infancy in answer to plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff contended as follows: That the goods supplied were necessaries, and consequently outside prohibition: that in the agreement, defendant had represented himself as of lull age, and could not now take advantage of his own fraud: that the circumstances were such that the court should give Kaintiff relief in equity and good conscience.

In his judgment, the magistrate ; |said: —“That the motor-cycle was! ; n s c< 7f’ i: .^' r .“ cannot agree, and the items I of ~13 3s and £29 must fall into the! . same category as the cycle itself. The Sale of Goods Act. section 4, defines necessaries as goods suitable to the condition of life of such infant or minor, and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery. The circumstances of defendant in this case are quite different. He had not the actual requirement of a motoreycle for himself at the time of sale. There is the second contention that i , f f ndant ’ having misrepresented himff of f Y n a&e in the agreement, should not be permitted to take advantage of his own fraud. Unfortunatei>, m a case based on contract such as this, that is just what he can do. I do not know what excuse defendant nas for having signed the document. Possibly he meant no deliberate false - : hood, but even supposing that he did j to cp-iote from Sir John Salmond’s work j on contracts.’Deliberate lying as to his own age will not make a minor any more liable on a contract produced by nis falsehood.’ No equitable remedy is available to plaintiff. Such is really independent of the contract. “Lastly. I cannot apply the provisions of section 100. equity and good conscience jurisdiction, in attempting to give effect to a. transaction pronibited by law. Plaintiff migJit be worse off. He has the moior-cvcle for what it is worth. I must enter judgment for defendant."