Business Law 1
Week 4 Seminar Questions
Natasha Dunn, Forensic Investigation
Q1) This issue is governed under the Law of Contract, under the formation of contract and the revocation of a contract specifically under contractual capacity. Contractual capacity states that young persons aged sixteen and seventeen have full legal capacity. This protects young persons against ‘prejudicial transactions’ until they turn 18 and any contracts like this can be put aside by the court. However, there are exceptions to the rule: if under 18 and running your own business; if ratified before turning 18; if age is misrepresented when entering contract.
In this case, Jean is seventeen, running her own business and wants to get out of a legally bounding contract for an object in which has already been ordered. However, Jean cannot get out of the contract just because she is under eighteen years of age because she is running ...view middle of the document...
Furthermore, children under 16 are protected against ‘Prejudicial Transactions’ and can have contracts put aside by the courts
In this case James entered into a contract which is commonly entered into by persons of his age. However, children, as well as adults, are highly influenced by sales and any adult would have the right to return a piece of clothing and therefore if the contract was under reasonable terms James is well within his rights to return the coat.
Q3) This issue is governed by the Law of Contract, under the formation of a contract and specifically under the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to S1(3) and S1(4) ‘significant actings’. ‘Significant actings’ is when two parties come to agreement intended to be signed and undergo their sides of the contract i.e. heritable property; someone leasing a space to refurbish and start a business up in.
Through significant actings it states that if Y acted in reliance to the contract and X knew of these actions and did nothing to stop them and Y’s actions were ‘material’, then Y would suffer prejudice, should X withdraw. The prejudice would be to the price of refurbishment of property and the good-will i.e. price of the business.
In this case, John will be arguing that as the lease was not signed by him and therefore the contract is not valid and that he can put her out if he wants to. However, he will not succeed as ‘significant actings’ took place. John handed Mary the keys and by paying the first years rent and spending considerable amounts of money fitting out the premises and starting her business up; Mary acted in reliance of the contract. Furthermore, John knew about the actions and did nothing to stop her. Therefore, if John tries to terminate the contract and chuck Mary out he cannot as significant actings have taken place. Additionally, if he withdraws, Mary’s actions were material and she would be suffering from prejudice to the price of fittings and good-will under the requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995.