A right mess and my fault!! Help please - UPDATED

trickytrolleys

The kid has no contract with anybody anyway, somebody sold a phone, somebody else bought it and gave it to him, however, if he did use the sim knowing he shouldnt have then that is a criminal offence under the theft act and he is old enough to be held criminally responsible

carrie483

Would it not be worth contacting the head teacher of the school? Explaining to them what has happened? It won't get your phone bill changed but it does sound a bit odd that the teacher paid out for another phone after the original was *stolen* even though this wouldn't be the responsibility of the teacher involved?

trickytrolleys

carrie483 wrote:

Would it not be worth contacting the head teacher of the school? Explaining to them what has happened? It won't get your phone bill changed but it does sound a bit odd that the teacher paid out for another phone after the original was *stolen* even though this wouldn't be the responsibility of the teacher involved?

I agree - I think its a funny situation

Wig

mcelhinney wrote:

The kid has no contract with anybody anyway, somebody sold a phone, somebody else bought it and gave it to him, however, if he did use the sim knowing he shouldnt have then that is a criminal offence under the theft act and he is old enough to be held criminally responsible

He wasn't told that he couldn't use the phone, making this stick in court would not be possible IMO IANAL (good enough for you? - though I can't see why anyone would not take advices on an internet forum for what they are, which is points of view held by Joe Public nothing more nothing less. It should not be IANAL (that should be taken as read) it should be for the rare occasion a lawyer acually turns up.....IAAL)

jonesMUFCforever

Has nobody on here thought that a minor cannot enter into any contract before the age of 18 other than for 'necessary goods' - a mobile phone or SIM does not come under this.
Yes at 14 he probably knows what he was doing,but lets face it the only person liable for the £400 is the OP.
Sue a minor for something like this wil only land you with a bill for legal fees.
Pay up and get on with your life.

tomstickland

how do iu get the address of the kis who is yusing the phone, at the moment i only have his full name?

b4usearch.com or similar.

trickytrolleys

Wig wrote:

He wasn't told that he couldn't use the phone, making this stick in court would not be possible IMO IANAL (good enough for you? - though I can't see why anyone would not take advices on an internet forum for what they are, which is points of view held by Joe Public nothing more nothing less. It should not be IANAL (that should be taken as read) it should be for the rare occasion a lawyer acually turns up.....IAAL)

Whats IANAL or IAAL ????? Im doing a law degree and have completed the criminal law part so I do have a fair idea of what im talking about :-))

tomstickland

Anagram of ANAL?

trickytrolleys

tomstickland wrote:

Anagram of ANAL?

Isnt an anagram supposed to contain the same letters and actually say something ??

Poppy9

ejones999 wrote:

Has nobody on here thought that a minor cannot enter into any contract before the age of 18

Yes has been mentioned in earlier posts

For the legal buffs:

Minors
In general terms, adults of sound mind have full contractual capacity and are free to enter into such agreements as they wish and will be required to comply with any such. Minors, however, those under the age of 18, do not have full capacity. The rules which apply to minors are a mixture of common law and statute, and depend on when the contract was made. Contracts entered into after 9th June 1987 are subject to the Minors? Contracts Act (1987). In considering the cases cited in relation to capacity of minors it should be remembered that the age of majority was only lowered to 18 from 21 in 1969, so in the early cases minors were significantly older than they are now.

Agreements entered into by minors may be classified within three possible categories:

1. Valid contracts.
2. Voidable contracts.
3. Unenforceable contracts.

(i) Valid contracts
These are agreements that can be enforced against minors and involve one of the following:

• contracts for necessaries. Minors are under a legal obligation to pay for things necessary for their maintenance although even then they will only be required to pay a reasonable price for any necessaries purchased. Necessaries are defined in the Sale of Goods Act, Section 3, as goods suitable to the condition in life of the minor and their actual requirements at the time of sale. The classic case on this point is the wonderfully anachronistic Nash v. Inman (1908) in which a tailor sued a minor to whom he had supplied clothes, including 11 fancy waistcoats. It was decided that, as the minor was an undergraduate at Cambridge University at the time, the clothes were suitable according to the minor?s station in life. Unfortunately for the tailor, however, it was further decided that they were not necessary, as he already had sufficient clothing.
• beneficial contracts of service. A minor is bound by a contract of apprenticeship or employment, as long as it contains an element of education or training and is, on the whole, for their benefit. In Doyle v. White City Stadium (1935), a minor who had obtained a professional boxer?s licence, attempted to avoid some of the rules contained in the agreement by having it declared unenforceable due to his lack of capacity. In deciding the case, not only was the licence treated as a contract of apprenticeship, but it was also held that, taken as whole, it was beneficial to him.

(ii) Voidable contracts
These may be avoided by the minor, but if no steps are taken to repudiate the contract during the time of their minority, or within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, then they are binding and cannot be avoided subsequently.


Voidable agreements relate to transactions in which the minor acquires an interest of a permanent nature with obligations continuing into the time of their majority: examples are contracts for shares, or leases of property, or partnership agreements.

The minor will only be able to recover money paid out under the terms of the agreement before repudiation of the contract, where there is a total failure of consideration. In other words they will not be able to recover the money unless they received no benefit whatsoever from the agreement. As an example see Steinberg v. Scala (Leeds) (1923) in which a minor, applied for and was allotted shares in the defendant company. After paying some money on the shares she repudiated the contract. Although the company agreed to remove her name from its register of members, it refused to return any of her money. It was held that the plaintiff had benefited from membership rights and thus, as there had not been a complete failure of consideration, she was not entitled to the return of the money paid.

(iii) Unenforceable contracts
Under the Infants Relief Act (1874) the following contracts were stated to be absolutely void:

• contracts for the repayment of loans;
• contracts for goods other than necessaries;
• accounts stated: i.e., admissions of money owed.

In addition, no action could be brought on the basis of the ratification, made after the attainment of full age, of an otherwise void contract.


Although the Infants Relief Act stated that such contracts were absolutely void; in effect this simply meant that they could not be enforced against the minor. The Minors? Contracts Act 1987 now declares that the contracts set out in the Infants Relief Act are no longer to be considered as absolutely void. As a consequence, unenforceable contracts may be ratified on the minor attaining the age of majority.

The Minors? Contracts Act has also given the courts wider powers to order the restoration of property acquired by a minor. They are no longer restricted to cases where the minor has acquired the property through fraud but can order restitution where they think it ?just and equitable? to do so. Minors liability in tort
As there is no minimum age limit in relation to actions in tort, minors may be liable under a tortious action. The courts, however, will not permit a party to enforce a contract indirectly by substituting an action in tort, or quasi-contract, for an action in contract. Thus in Leslie v. Shiell (1914), the defendant, whilst a minor, had obtained a loan from Leslie by lying about his age. When Leslie sued to recover the money as damages in an action for the tort of deceit, it was held that he could not succeed as he was merely using an indirect way of enforcing the otherwise void contract.

And if you are drunk or doped upto the eyeballs:D


Mental incapacity and intoxication
Age is not the only ground for denying capacity to someone in order to protect them from entering into adverse contractual agreements. The law, however, is less accommodating towards these other forms of incapacity. Thus any contract entered into by a person who is of unsound mind or under the influence of drink or drugs is prima facie valid. The onus is placed on the party claiming such incapacity in order to avoid a contract to show:

• that their mind was so affected at the time that they were incapable of understanding the nature of their actions; and
• that the other party either knew or ought to have known of their disability;
• even then, if the contract relates to necessities, they will still be bound by the contract but will only be required to pay a reasonable price for them.