Age of Legal Capacity: NRCoC

[glynn80]

Something that struck me when reading something on the internet, was the England's age of legal majority being set at 18. Now with the NRCoC being billed as a contract between the passenger and the TOC, is any of it legally enforceable when a minor purchases a ticket?

The basics of English law (Scottish law is slightly different) with regard to the Age of Legal Majority is set out below:

It is a presumption at law that every person is entitled to enter into a contract unless an exception applies. One of those excpetions is for minors. The age of contractual capacity for individuals is the age of 21 at common law, however this was reduced to the age of 18 in 1969 by Act of Parliament. Reaching the age of 18 is known as attaining 'majority'. Minors are those who have not attained the age of 18.

Minors are permitted to enter into contracts for limited purposes, and the test is one that focuses on the nature of the transaction, and whether the minor is of an age such that they capable of understanding it.

The general law states that contracts entered into by children that are for 'necessaries' are binding on children, as are those for apprenticeship, employment, education and service where they are rightly said to be for the benefit of the child. Contracts for necessaries are for the supply of food, medicines, accommodation, clothing, amongst other things but generally excludes conveniences, and products and services for comfort or pleasure. Commercial or 'trading' contracts are excluded. These latter contracts are voidable at the option of the minor, and whether the minor may avoid the contract depends on the nature of the contract.

Contracts where the minor may avoid the affect of the contract are for the acquisition of a legal or equitable interest in property of a permanent nature, such as shares, land, marriage and partnerships. Other contracts require positive ratification in order to be enforceable, which includes contracts for debts and the sale of goods that are not for necessaries. The ratification must take the form of an acknowledgement that the debt is binding after attaining the age of 18. Fresh consideration is not required for the ratification to be complete.

Restraints of trade may be unenforceable against a minor, even if they would be enforceable against an adult.

So the basic question that evolves from the quote above is whether Rail Travel is a "necessary" in the eyes of the law?

 

[John @ home]

So the basic question that evolves from the quote above is whether Rail Travel is a "necessary" in the eyes of the law?

There are defined limits above which local education authorities need to provide transport to and from school for children - 2 miles up to a particular age and 3 miles above that age IIRC. Presumably if that travel is by train it is necessary at least for those journeys.

John

 

[Mojo]

Bear in mind though the actual text of the law: "necessaries mean goods suitable to the condition in life of the minor...and to his actual requirements at the time of sale or delivery."

So you couldn't actually say whether it is a necessary as a whole, the court would have to decide in each individual case.

Also applies for services.

In 1908, £122 (almost £11,000 today) of "fancy waistcoats" were a necessary for a Cambridge undergraduate (the claim failed for a different reason) Nash v Inman

A holiday could be a necessary if to recover from an illness, or if the minor's condition in life is such that frequent holidays are a fact of life.

Bear in mind that is a simple explanation and other factors apply, such as the Minors' Contracts Act 1987.

 

[First class]

The age of full legal capacity has been 16 since 25 September 1991 by virtue of S1 (1) (b) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. Before that it was 18.

Persons between 16 and 18 entitled to legal rights have complete legal freedom to claim or discharge legal rights (or to elect between legal rights and testamentary provisions in their favour), as they please. However, a person aged 16 or over but under 18 can before reaching age 21 apply to the court to have a 'prejudicial transaction' set aside.

S3 (1) of the 1991 Act provides that a person under 21 may apply to the court to set aside a 'prejudicial transaction' he or she entered into when of or over 16 years of age but under 18.S3 (2) defines a 'prejudicial transaction' as one which

an adult exercising reasonable prudence would not have entered into in the circumstances of the applicant at the time of entering into the transaction, and
has caused or is likely to cause substantial prejudice to the applicant
Before 25 September 1991 a young person had a four year period (termed the 'quadriennium utile') running from their 18th birthday in which to challenge and have set aside by the court, prejudicial transactions entered into personally or on their behalf before reaching age 18. Such transactions included any, shown to have been prejudicial to that person, involving dealings with rights to legitim ( IHTM12221). This was abolished by the 1991 Act

For IHT, IHTA84/S147 ( IHTM35211) was introduced to take account of the lack of legal capacity of children under full age entitled to legal rights. The provisions of this section are not affected by the 1991 Act and the relevant age remains 18.

 

[glynn80]

The age of full legal capacity has been 16 since 25 September 1991 by virtue of S1 (1) (b) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. Before that it was 18.

Correct, this is the case for Scotland.

As I stated above Scottish law is slightly different on the issue than English Law.

 

[ian13]

I suspect there would be issues in some cases in enforcing the contract. "Necessaries" would apply to cases of transportation to/from education, employment etc., but quite possibly not for a day out.

Of course, the more serious matters can be dealt with through the bylaws as long as the child is over the age of 10.

Then again, bylaw 7(1)(ii) is regularly flouted by adults.