CHAR_A01.PDF, page 1-18 @ Normalize ( CHAR_A01.QXD )

Necessaries may take the form of services, although these have not been
defined by statute in the same way as goods. The term includes contracts
for education, training, employment, and legal and medical expenses, and
also applies to the spouse and children of a minor.

However, if a contract for services is particularly onerous on the minor, it
will not be binding, however necessary the services are to him.

So, we can see that the following position emerges regarding necessaries:

• basic requirements for survival, such as basic shelter, food and clothing,
  normally will be necessaries, and the minor will have to pay a reasonable
  price for them


• more luxurious items which have a utility value may be regarded as
  necessaries, such as a car which is used to reach the work place or
  college course, and, again, the minor will have to pay


• items which are merely luxuries, such as jewellery, will not normally be
  regarded as necessaries, and the contract will be unenforceable against
  the minor


• similar principles apply to services, providing the agreement is not too
  onerous on the minor.

Beneficial contracts of service

A second type of contract which may be valid against a minor, is the
beneficial contract of service, really an extension of the statement of Baron

Capacity 83

Think of some things which you have bought recently, and try to decide if

they would be regarded by the court as necessaries.

Chapple v Cooper (1844)

A young widow was sued successfully for the funeral expenses for her

late husband, as these services were regarded as necessaries.

Fawcett v Smethurst (1914)

A minor hired a vehicle to transport his belongings – a service which

would almost certainly be considered a necessary. However, in this

case is was held not to be binding, since a clause in the contract

would have made the minor liable for cost of repairs to the vehicle,

whether his own fault or not.