Peters v Fleming (Necessaries)

In this case, the court decided the meaning of "necessaries": those things which a minor can make a binding contract for. In those days it would have seemed quite natural to give minors different rights depending on their "station in life". One suspects the same reasoning would find somewhat more criticism now, at least if based on concepts like social class.
If my videos are helpful to you, you could always buy me a coffee!
www.buymeacoff...

[@joytosan34]

Thank you very much for this video. I was looking for a proper case breif everywhere. This really help put things into perspective. Thank you!

[@AnthsLawSchool]

Glad it was helpful!

[@giftkapala4969]

Thank you, couldn't find a proper brief

[@rhyswong7629]

Are you gonna cover criminal and tort cases at some point? How about fun ones like Corcoran v Whent (the mush in the stomach) and Donoghue v Stevenson (the snail in the bottle)? Enjoying these 2 minute summaries so far!

[@AnthsLawSchool]

Hi Rhys, I'm planning to keep adding cases from a whole bunch of different areas of law - there is one criminal case and a couple of torts cases so far, but since you've requested those I'll do them next :)

[@AnthsLawSchool]

LOL actually Rhys, if you want Corcoran v Whent, you might have to email me copy of the case report ... none of my databases seem to contain the Criminal Review.

[@vivianp1618]

Does this mean that if a minor has purchased an item that is not considered a "necessity"; for example an expensive XBOX computer console. Can they then decide at a later date that they do not have to pay for it? If so, can they keep the XBOX in their possession?

[@AnthsLawSchool]

Sort of. Most jurisdictions have changed the law under the Sale of Goods Act for minors - now all it says is that you can't charge a minor more than you would charge an adult.
For transactions like this, usually cash is required before the item leaves the store, so the contract is fully executed and there is nothing for the seller to enforce; or the item is sold on credit, and our credit laws limit credit to adults, so the other party would be an adult even if the item was bought for a child.
If someone was unwise enough to let a child walk out with an XBox on a promise to pay later, then yep, it would likely be unenforceable. I'd then be exploring whether equity - particularly the doctrine of unjust enrichment - could be used to get the Xbox back. There's no authority, because as a practical matter it's either never happened or just never been the basis of litigation.

[@priscillamunjita8316]

@@AnthsLawSchool Thank you Sir. You answer has helped me so much.

[@adelsasa-up2bo]

​@@AnthsLawSchool but this doesnt make much sense shouldn't the minor have a lesser punishment i he steals a necessity because he needs it such as food or water?

[@deependrasinghrathore1601]

Thank you sir

[@AnthsLawSchool]

Always a pleasure!

[@deependrasinghrathore1601]

@@AnthsLawSchool your FB Id sir

[@AnthsLawSchool]

Sorry mate? I'm not sure I understand.