Bench-: Kings Bench Division
FACTS
The plaintiff, R. Leslie, Ltd., engaged in a transaction with the defendant, identified as 'X,' who happened to be a minor. Through deceptive means, X falsely portrayed himself as an individual of legal age to the plaintiff. This misrepresentation induced the plaintiff to extend a loan of £400 to X, under the misconception that X possessed the legal capacity to enter into a valid contractual agreement.
ISSUE
The key legal question in this case pertains to the enforceability of a contract made with a minor who has deceitfully misrepresented their age. More precisely, the issue revolves around determining whether a minor, who has falsely portrayed themselves as an adult to engage in a contract, can be held responsible for repaying funds acquired through such a contractual arrangement.
JUDGMENT
The court applied the principles outlined in the Infants Relief Act 1874. Despite the minor's fraudulent misrepresentation, the court ruled that the £400 loan contract was void. This decision was grounded in the legal doctrine that a minor cannot be held accountable for the terms of a contract, particularly one involving financial transactions, even if the minor provided false information about their age.
The plaintiff attempted an alternative route for recovering the money by arguing that the claim was not aimed at enforcing the contract but seeking restitution due to the fraudulent misrepresentation. Nevertheless, the court in R. Leslie, Ltd. v. Sheill interpreted this as an indirect attempt to enforce the original void contract. The guiding principle here is that one cannot achieve indirectly what is not permissible directly under the law.
Comments