Nash v Inman (Necessaries)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 лис 2020
- Contract law tells us a minor is allowed to make a binding contract for necessaries - however this case tells us the contract may not be binding after all, if the minor already has an adequate supply.
Grateful for the video. In my class lecture slides, Nash v Inman, peters v Fleming cases are present. I wanted to read the slides in advance but had trouble understanding what both cases meant. Your videos have helped me. Thank you
Fascinating stuff as usual. I wonder how the courts would view the constant barrage of marketing materials from smartphone retailers to induce young people to upgrade their phones? I would contend that while a phone could be considered a necessary for young people today, retailers are potentially taking advantage of young people who, like the Cambridge student in the case, are somewhat vain and subject to peer pressure? There's got to be a precedent somewhere given the number of suspect phone contracts one hears about. Have a good day :-)
Yes, I think there is a lot in that. Internet access would certainly be a necessary, but I think in most cases the phone cnotract still belongs to the parents. And while the phone may be a necessary, that new ringtone or gaming credit might not be ...
thats really helpful. thank u!
You're welcome!
Hi sir may I ask is there any cases that is similar to this case such YOUNG v. WEAVER
Hi there, Nash v Inman is a fairly fundamental case, so I am sure it has been cited hundreds of times in various other matters :)