June, Tom, Maurice and Jack need legal advice on contracts they got into, their cases are specifically in relation to contract capacity. Their cases range from contracts of necessities, beneficial contracts of service to mental incapacity and intoxication.
They also so need to understand what contract is, contract is a legally binding agreement. However not all agreement are legally binding as there are certain criteria they need to meet before it can be considered as a contract.
In the first case June is the client. June is a 17-year-old girl who purchased an outfit from a fashion catalogue. The general area of law is contract law; she specifically has an issue with contract capacity of a minor.
June’s legal problem is to know whether the contract she has entered can be enforced after purchasing a sparking outfit from a fashion catalogue which might be considered a contact of necessaries even though she possesses a wardrobe full of party dresses, some of which have never been worn.
Since June is a minor, her capacity, which is legal liability to enter into a contract, is limited.

At common law the contracts of a minors are voidable except such as were necessarily or beneficial contract of service
In this case Junes problem falls under contract for necessaries. June will be bound to pay for the outfit if it deemed as a necessary to maintain her. Luxury items are not considered as necessaries under the law.
June would not be bound to the contract because the outfit she purchased is not deemed as necessary unless the plaintiff is able to prove other wise.

As she already possesses a wardrobe full of party dresses, some of which have never been worn and on top of the facts the sparkling outfit is deemed, as luxury is very subjective base on the price. This was the case of NASH V INMAN [1908]
Nasha a tailor, entered into a contract to supply Inman a student of Cambridge with, amongst other things, 11 fancy waistcoats. Inman was a minor who was already adequately supplied with clothes by his father. When Nash claimed the cost of these clothes Inman sought to rely on lack of capacity and succeeded at first instance.
Point of law is if a minor orders something that they already have sufficient quantity of then those items cant be necessaries.
The range as to whether an item is a necessary is not closed in fact is very wide ranging as much depends on the status of the minor and the subject matter of the contract.

In conclusion it appears that what June purchased isn’t classified as a necessity. I will advice June that the contract she entered cannot be enforced and had it not been to the fact that she already possesses a wardrobe full of party dresses, some of which have never been worn, she would have been bound to honour the contract or have the contract enforced on her.

Tom is a 15 year old who last month entered into an agreement with bill Bowls, a well-known snooker player. The general area of law is contract law; more specifically contract capacity for a minor

beneficial contract of service for minors.
Toms legal problem is to know if the contract he recently entered is enforceable.
Under the agreement he will not be paid cannot be play snooker for any other organisation and will not be kept on by bill, if the coach is not entirely satisfied with his performance

At common law the contracts of a minors are voidable except such as were necessarily or beneficial contract of service.
In this case Tom is bound to the contract as it is beneficial contract of service because there is an element of education and training in the contract which, on the whole, its for his own benefit and will be treated as contract of apprenticeship unless Tom can prove it was not for his benefit or beneficial for him.
This was the case in Doyle v White stadium [1935]
A minors contract was subject to the rules of the British Boxing Board of Control. He was disqualified for hitting below the belt and lost his purse and later on