- person who hasn’t reached

the age of majority (18 y/o)

(Sec. 2 of AMA 1971)

- to protect minors as they

have immature mind & are
often exploited

- contract entered by minor

is void-ab-initio [Sec. 2(g)],
cannot sue / be sued

- respondent entered into an

agreement for the purchase
of lands belong to which
appellant was the
administratrix

- at the time of the

agreement, the respondent
was a minor
[Leha Jusoh v Awang Johari]

- court held that the contract

is void

- pursuant to Sec. 66, the

appellant was ordered to
repay the $5000 once the
respondent has vacate the
land

- contract entered by minor

for necessaries is VALID &
BINDING

- ex: food / shelter /

clothes / medical services /
education

- provides for the supplier of

necessaries to be reimbursed

Sec. 69
- what’s supplied must be
suited with the minor’s
condition in life

- defendant received a
scholarship from defendant &
he has to serve the
governments after he
A) Necessaries Contract
graduated

- however, defendant left

before full term

- plaintiff sued defendant &

claimed for $11,500 (the
[Government of M’sia v
amount of which the
Gurcharan Singh & Ors]
government spent in
educating defendant)

- at the time of the contract,

defendant was still a minor &
he claimed that the contract
is void

- court held that education is

necessary, thus defendant
was liable for the repayment

- plaintiff (boxer) made a

contract with British Boxing
Board of Control (BBBC)

- if plaintiff is disqualified, he
wouldn’t get the prize

- plaintiff was disqualified, he [Doyle v White City Stadium] B) Beneficial Contract

then sued BBBC & claimed
that he was a minor

To protect persons who have

- court held that the
no capacity to contract.
agreement was binding, as it
was for the benefit of
plaintiff and to encourage To safeguard the interests of
clean fighting those who transact with
them.

- no scholarship agreement DEFINITION

shall be invalidated on the All agreements are contracts
Sec. 4(a) of Contracts 1. Minor
ground that the scholarship if they’re made by free
(Amendment) Act 1976 Sec. 10(1)
entering into such agreement consent of parties competent
is not the age of majority to contract.

- plaintiff appointed
NOT COMPETENT PARTIES
LAW436 - Sec. 11

Capacity
defendant to a scholarship
offered by Canadian
Sec. 2 of Age of Majority Act
government
1971
1. Age of Majority
- both parties entered into
18 y/o
the scholarship agreement
COMPETENT PARTIES
C) Scholarships Contract 2. Soundmind
- however, defendant
breached the term & claimed
that the scholarship [University of Malaya v Lee 3. Not Disqualified from
agreement was void, as it Ming Chong] EXCEPTIONS FOR MINOR Contracting (Bankruptcy)
was made without
consideration

- court held that the fact

that the plaintiff appointed
him to the scholarship was
the consideration on its part
for defendant’s promise to
serve it for 5 years after
graduated, thus defendant
was liable

- a minor over the age of 10

may enter into contract of
insurance

- but, if he’s below 16, the Insurance Act 1963 D) Insurance Contract
infant can only do so with the
written consent of his
parents / guardians (age
10-16)

- nothing In this act shall

affect the capacity of any
person to act in the following Sec. 4(a) of AMA 1971
matters: (marriage /
divorce / dower / adoption)

- both plaintiff & defendant

are Hindu

- defendant broke a promise

to marry plaintiff
E) Mariage Contract

- plaintiff claim damages for

breach of contract [Rajeswary v Balakrishnan]

- court granted the claims

even though plaintiff is a
minor, as defendant has
broke contract of marriage
which was made under
normal practice of their
customs

F) Employment Contract

- when minor enters into a

contract, by misrepresenting
himself as major

- effect of contract entered

by minor is VOID, even If it’s
established that the minor
induced other party to enter
into contract by
misrepresenting himself as
major

- respondent (moneylender) G) Fraud by Minor

sued appellant for money
that he lent

- appellant claimed that he

was still a minor at the time
[Mohamed Syedol Ariffin v
of the loan, but he told
Yeoh Ooi Gark]
respondent that he was 21
y/o

- court held that the

respondent cannot claim
from appellant

Sec. 12(1)(2)(3)

[Sim Kon Sang v Datin Shim

2. Persons of Unsound Mind
Tok Seng]

3. Bankrupts