Business Law Case Study
Case
Jonathan, a moneylender makes a loan of $1,000 to Sheba on Sheba’s representation that she is 19 years old. Sheba is in fact 17 years old. She enrolled for diploma course with a private college for $500, spent $200 on a holiday, and the balance of $300 on a mini hi-fi set. She now refuses to pay Jonathan.
In this case, we are acting for Jonathan (plaintiff). Jonathan sues Sheba (defendant) because of free consent and capacity. Free consent that we talk is about misrepresentation whereas capacity is about her being a minor.
“Free consent is one of the essential elements of a valid contract which provides that all agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of the parties….” (Tulsian, 1998, p.53)
“Capacity is legal power to enter into binding obligations or to enjoy the privileges of a legal status.”(Sinha & Dheeraj, 1996, p. 30)
“…misrepresentation is a falsely made statement of material fact not opinion (Bisset V Wilkinson) nor future intention made by one party to another before the formation of contract intended to induce one party to enter the contract” (Tuner, C., 2001)
“…a minor is a person under the age of 18 years…” (Law essays UK, 2006). Or a minor is a person who has not attained majority (Tulsian, 1998, p.40) and from this case, the minor is Sheba who is 17 years old.
The legal issues to be looked at are as follow: 1) Sheba’s representation to Jonathan that she is above age when she is actually not thus misrepresentation her age. 2) Sheba being a minor cannot enter into a contract only for essential items. Is the contract valid? 3) The loan was spent on three items. Firstly, paying for enrollment fee. Is this sum claimable? Secondly, she spent RM 200 on a holiday and thirdly, purchases RM 300 for mini hi-fi set. 4) The lent two items are definitely not essential items. Whether Jonathan should have checked her age by verifying her documents first?
The law is clear on contract as to the age of the parties. Only those
Jonathan, a moneylender makes a loan of $1,000 to Sheba on Sheba’s representation that she is 19 years old. Sheba is in fact 17 years old. She enrolled for diploma course with a private college for $500, spent $200 on a holiday, and the balance of $300 on a mini hi-fi set. She now refuses to pay Jonathan.
In this case, we are acting for Jonathan (plaintiff). Jonathan sues Sheba (defendant) because of free consent and capacity. Free consent that we talk is about misrepresentation whereas capacity is about her being a minor.
“Free consent is one of the essential elements of a valid contract which provides that all agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of the parties….” (Tulsian, 1998, p.53)
“Capacity is legal power to enter into binding obligations or to enjoy the privileges of a legal status.”(Sinha & Dheeraj, 1996, p. 30)
“…misrepresentation is a falsely made statement of material fact not opinion (Bisset V Wilkinson) nor future intention made by one party to another before the formation of contract intended to induce one party to enter the contract” (Tuner, C., 2001)
“…a minor is a person under the age of 18 years…” (Law essays UK, 2006). Or a minor is a person who has not attained majority (Tulsian, 1998, p.40) and from this case, the minor is Sheba who is 17 years old.
The legal issues to be looked at are as follow: 1) Sheba’s representation to Jonathan that she is above age when she is actually not thus misrepresentation her age. 2) Sheba being a minor cannot enter into a contract only for essential items. Is the contract valid? 3) The loan was spent on three items. Firstly, paying for enrollment fee. Is this sum claimable? Secondly, she spent RM 200 on a holiday and thirdly, purchases RM 300 for mini hi-fi set. 4) The lent two items are definitely not essential items. Whether Jonathan should have checked her age by verifying her documents first?
The law is clear on contract as to the age of the parties. Only those