LLBU9CM

Word count: 1,507

In Jenny and Xavier case the law that applies is contract law in which they both have
brought good off of the same shop owner. In contract law when someone purchases
something off of someone this automatically forms a contract, more concisely it is the law of
voluntary obligations individuals enter into contracts by their own free will. In terms of
Xavier and Susan situation it can be determined that a contract was made, there must be an
agreement or consensus in idem that is basically an agreement with regards to the same
thing (e.g. price, subject matter etc), basically the offer and acceptance must match, this can
easily be related to Xavier and Susans case as he specifically told her to put the item to one
side so that he can go get the money that was needed in order to buy the item, but then she
had sold this and created a new agreement which she said he had to abide to otherwise
police would get involved, this goes under the element of force and fear. In addition along
with Jenny’s case a clear contract has been made because she has made the offer of paying
the price of the bike and then the Susan accepted this by letting her buy it, however she
wasn’t satisfied with what she received because it wasn’t what she wanted, which Susan
had led her on to believe that it was a specific bike used by an olympian. it is possible that
Jenny may have been under undue influence as the person in trust or authority (Susan)
abuses that position to persuade someone into a contract (Jenny), this can be linked to
Jenny’s situation as Susan led her to believe that the item was that of a olympian , Susan
didn’t bother correcting her assumptions. Therefore this then makes the contract voidable
and therefore has to be set aside by courts.

Furthermore we can link these two situations to many other cases that have happened
throughout contract law history in order to determine a verdict and back up judgements.
Such as the Earl of Orkney v Vinfra (1606) Mor. 16481, this was where Andrew Vinfra was
summoned to the earls castle. He was presented with a deed by the earl, and was ordered
to sign it. It was an agreement that Vinfra was to pay 2,000 merks and he refused to do so.
The earl then started to threaten and curse him in which he said that he would drive a
dagger right through his skull. This terrified Vinfra and he then signed the deed out of fear.
Vinfra then wanted the contract to be declared void on the grounds that It was done out of
force and fear. The court then declared that the agreement was void.1 On the other hand
some forms of action will not ground an action for force and fear for example in Hunter v
Bradford property trust Ltd, two sisters were in financial difficulties. They signed an
agreement with a property company and the terms were that the sisters would be paid a
certain amount of money when the company sold a property belonging to them. Although
the contractor found that the contract did accurately record this and that a second contract
would needed to be signed, or he would cancel the sale. The sisters signed but sought to
have the contract reduced on the grounds of force and fear. However it was decided that
the sisters had not made a case of force and fear, as the threat to cancel was not

1
Sean J. Crossan, a companion blog to introductory Scots Law (3rd edition), 2020
LLBU9CM
Word count: 1,507
2920615

unlawful.2In addition another case that is similar is Gray v Binny (1879), where Gray who
was 24 and heir under a deed of entail, executed a deed by which he parted with his rights
in an estate for very much less value than true value, his mother and her legal advisor Binny
persuaded him into an agreement, his mother however was in deep debt with her legal
advisor. His mother passed away and Gray then brought an action for reduction. The court
then stated that Gray had been under undue influence of his mother and the agreement
was reduced. 3

The age of legal capacity act ( Scotland ) 1991, this act separates a persons capacity to act
into three periods. In general, a person deemed to have no capacity to enter into
transactions. Any important legal step will generally be taken by that persons legal
representative, which usually is the parents. Children are entitled to enter into transactions
provided two conditions are satisfied. First the transaction must be of a kind commonly
entered into by persons of that age and circumstances, secondly, the terms of the
transaction must be reasonable. These two conditions are cumulative: if either or both are
unfulfilled and the transaction is void.4

In the case of Earl of Orkney v Vinfra, this can be easily applied to Xavier situation, he was
clearly put into a position where he felt he was forced into an agreement with Susan where
he had to buy the bike in fear that she would then get the police involved, this in parallel
relates to when the Earl of Orkney threatened to put a dagger into the skull of Vinfra thus
forcing him to sign the deed, however he then managed to take steps to take his case too
court in which they then ruled that the contract was void and as if it had never existed.
Therefore we can relate this to Xavier and say that the contract can be deemed void as it
was done out of force and fear and then on these grounds the contract between him and
Susan is now nullified and deemed void. On the other hand it could be argued that the
threat wasn’t unlawful just as this was concluded in Hunter v Bradford property Trustee, but
in Xavier case it was because Xavier is only 15 and paying large amount of money isn’t a
common contract for someone of his age group and Susans threat of calling the police can
be argued as unlawful because he is a minor. Hence he didn’t want to get in trouble by the
police being so young he was fearful and this ultimately forced him into agreeing to buy the
bike. So therefore Xavier can get his money back based on the grounds of force and fear.
And their contract can be deemed void and Xavier can get his money back.

Furthermore we can also relate the case of Gray v Binny ( 1879 ) where his mother and her
legal advisor persuaded him into an agreement who his mother was already in deep debt
with, she then passed away. Gray then brought an action for reduction. The court ruled he
was under undue influence of his mother and the agreement was then reduced. This can
2
Gillian black and others, Woolman on contract 5th edition, (2014) pg 67
3
Yvonne Mclaren, Contract law – some specific issues, (2020)
4
Gillian black and others, Woolman on contract 5th edition, (2014) pg 53
LLBU9CM
Word count: 1,507
2920615

relate to Jenny’s situation and the fact that she was under undue influence as the person in
authority and a place of trust i.e Susan, Susan was specifically told by Jenny that she was
looking for the bike this famous Olympian Sir Bradley had used and she thought that Susan
had the possession of this bike in her shop. When jenny was clearly ecstatic about it, Susan
didn’t bother correcting her. Now as a shop owner it is her duty to let customers know and
correct them. Jenny is eligible for a refund under the basis of undue influence because she
purchased something on what she thought it was and was led to believe however she did
find out the bike was not suitable for her needs.

In addition the age of legal capacity any 1 person under the age of 16 can enter into a
contract but this can only happen if I is one commonly entered by that age group, in Xaviers
case this Is not true, as buying a bike for 1,300 is not a common contract that one enters at
that age, purely because the amount of money involved, he would have to do get the
permission of his legal guardian. This therefore makes the contract void.

In conclusion, with all things considered a final judgement can be made that Xavier was way
too young to make that purchase in the first place, furthermore the fact that force and fear
was implemented by Susan in order to get him to purchase the bike, which therefore will be
ruled by court as a void contract. In addition Jenny was under undue influence as the person
in authority which is Susan misled her to believe that the bike was Olympian Sir Bradleys
which she found out to be false when she used the bike , therefore may be able to get her
money back.