Alderson in Chapple v Cooper (see p. 82). Often this takes the form of a
contract of employment, education or training for a minor.
It is really an extension of the idea of necessaries, as it is regarded as
essential that a minor learns a skill or trade in order to support himself. It is
obviously of major concern economically that minors develop the skills and in
an environment which enables them to learn a trade or profession, and that they
are able to form satisfactory contracts of employment. With these contracts the
courts take the view that an oppressive contract is unenforceable against a
minor, but that if a contract is, on the whole, beneficial to the minor, then it
will be binding, even though an individual clause may not be to his advantage.
The approach taken by the courts is illustrated in the following
contrasting cases.
84 Contract law
De Francesco v Barnum (1889)
A 14-year-old girl formed a 7-year agreement to train as a stage dancer.
It was said that she was entirely at the disposal of her stage master, as
he did not guarantee her any work, she could not accept any other work
without his agreement, and she could not marry or travel abroad during
this time. The contract was held to be on the whole oppressive, rather
than beneficial, and therefore unenforceable.Aylesbury FC v Watford AFC(1977)
Lee Cook, a 17-year-old footballer, was contracted to Aylesbury but
allowed to treat the contract as not binding on him so that he could
form a new contract to play for Watford. A restraint of trade clause in
his original contract was held to be too onerous and the contract not
therefore, on the whole, for the minor’s benefit.Clements v London & NW Rail Co(1894)
A young porter joined a private insurance scheme, but in return gave
up certain statutory rights as an employee. The court held that despite
the benefit which had been given up under the contract, he had received
greater benefit from the employer, so it was on the whole to his benefit,
and therefore enforceable.Doyle v White City Stadium(1935)
A young boxer was held bound by a contract in which he was subject
to the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control. This meant that heWhy, as a matter of policy, should the law be concerned with beneficial contracts
of service?