Dharmodas Ghose Case

* Minors are defined as individuals under the age of majority to contract. This is the age at which a person is entitled to the management of his/her own estate (18 in most states).

Contractual capacity is, “The legal capability to form a binding contract. A number of classes of people lack contractual capacity, and these include minors…” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2010). A minor’s capacity to contract and the lack of an employee’s capacity to bind a company by contract could be used in defense against a breach of contract.’ Consideration is necessary for any contract to exist. A promissory estoppel is used when consideration requirements are absent (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p.250).

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

29) Plaintiff was order to be ready to come to work with 24 hour notice. This gave the Defendant no opportunity to see the Plaintiffs minor child. Children need fathers.

Cross-Complainants are homeowners whose home was substantially damaged by a fire, and required reconstruction. Beginning on or about August 21, 2015 Cross-Defendants induced Cross-Complainants to engage Crestline Builders, Inc. to reconstruct Cross-Complainants’ Home by representing to the Bolanos that all reconstruction improvements shall be completed in four months. Further, Cross-Defendants induced Cross-Complainants to engage Crestline Builders, Inc. to reconstruct Cross-Complainants’ Home by representing to the Bolanos that that the price of the reconstruction improvements would be the amount approved by the Bolanos’ insurance.

This appeal arises out of a judgment awarded to appellee, Amelie Kemogne (“Kemogne”), against appellant, Charles Ndeumeni, (“Ndeumeni”), following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Ndeumeni challenges the denial of his motion for summary judgment, the admission of certain testimony offered against him, as well of the sufficiency of the evidence that sustained the judgment against him. On appeal, Ndeumeni presents four issues for our review. We rephrase and reorder the questions as follows:

Smooth could sue Jeff Fresh for fraud because Jeff did not inform Smooth of his age though it would not make it far in the courts due to a minor does not have a full understanding of contracts which is why the contract would be unenforceable. Smooth may be fined for not taking the necessary steps in checking age and not gaining the permission of the minor’s parents, or placing the contract in the parents’ names. Some legal and equitable remedies that may be used are compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and special performance. Compensatory damages are when the party whom the breach happened to gets compensated for the remainder of the contract as if the contract would have played out though the contract was never enforceable due to Jeff being a minor. If Smooth had written action which may happen if the contract was breached is considered liquated damages, Smooth may try to get Jeff’s parents to pay the remainder of the balance. Special performance means the person whom

Ariana (defendant) is 19 and purchased a sofa and framed print from Apartments ‘r’ us (plaintiff) with cash for $1400. She notified the plaintiffs that she wanted to disaffirm the contract which was voidable at her discretion because she is considered an infant under the law of Hollis. The legal age to enter into a contract in Hollis is 20 years old and Ariana is 19 years old. There is no indication that she has been emancipated by marriage, enlistment in any branch of the military, or by court order as would deem her not an infant under Hollis Revised Statutes 12 H.R.S. §(100)(e)(2). None of the items the defendant purchased were necessaries, so the defendant maintains the right to disaffirm. It is unknown whether the sales contract was written. By the Statue of Frauds, the contract should be in writing because it was for the sale of goods worth more than $500. The court will enforce the contract even if it isn’t in writing because the buyer has already accepted the goods and the parties agree that there was a contract at one point. The defendant communicated clear and unequivocal disaffirmance to the plaintiffs. Ariana is requesting rescission and restitution of the sales contract. This would nullify the contract and return both parties to status quo ante. Ariana wants all of her money back and in return she will return as much of the consideration as she has in her possession. It has been confirmed in past cases in other jurisdictions that a minor can

The Appellant asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed in its decision that is made by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the verdict to be overturned in his favour to be declared as void making the decision an error in law.

1. Competent parties. A court will not uphold a contract entered into by parties the law does not believe have the capacity to take on such a legal responsibility, such as minors or people who are mentally incapacitated.

Marshall received a signature on a contract from a seventeen year old minor in which he hopes to enforce. From a legal standpoint, minors have a limited ability to enter into contracts. The seventeen year old minor employee can void the contract he signed at any time. Minors have the option to do this because of laws made to protect them

Justice Mason was of the opinion that the respondents were entitled to an order setting aside the mortgage guarantee while Justice Gibbs ruled that the mortgage and guarantee was not binding to the respondents.

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum was a landmark case regarding a maintenance lawsuit. Shah Bano was a 62-year old Muslim woman and a mother of five from Madhya Pradesh, who was made to leave her matrimonial home by her husband, in 1975 . In April 1978, she filed for a maintenance amount of Rupees 500, and in November of the same year, her husband gave the ‘talaq’ (divorce) .

In this case plaintiff is boy of 18 years who argue that his uncle took his property by using coercion and undue influence. Both parties give their argument and how these arguments are relevant. Here we conclude difference between coercion and undue influence and how one is applicable and other is not in the judgment.