Majority according to the law to which they are subject are competent to contract. However, there are certain statutory exceptions to the rule that all contracts entered into by minors are void. These exceptions are found in the Age of Majority Act 1971 Contracts(Amendment) Act 1976, relating to scholarship agreements, and the Children and Young Persons(Employment) Act 1966. What is minor?
Minor is a person who has not reached the age of majority which is 18 years as provided in the Age of Majority Act 1971 where Subject to section 4, the minority of all males and females shall cease and determine within Malaysia at the GE of eighteen years and every such male and female attaining that age shall be of the age of majority. The general presumption is that a person must have contractual capacity. Such a protection is given because minors are presumed to have as they are young and they could be taken advantage of , thus the need for statutory protection.
However there are situations where in which the minor will be held accountable for contracts made in exceptional situations and it will be binding on the person executing such a contract even though he may not meet the legal requirements. The general rule is that persons entering into a contract must have contractual capacity. Section 10 Contracts Act states that ‘all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of the parties competent to contract.
And Sect 1 1 Contracts Act also states that ” Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of a sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. The law places some limitations on minors, insane persons and bankrupts. Under the Age of Majority Act a minor is a person who is below 18 years of age. Example in the case about Marriage Contracts between Researchers & Nor v Blandishing & Ours 3 MAC 178 HCI. The court was held that a contract to marry entered into by a minor was not void.
The parties to this action were Celanese Hindus. The second defendant, father of the Maxis Marketing Plan By maxima INTRODUCTION By virtue of Section 11 of the Contracts Act, only persons who are of the age of first attendant, through a go between approached the second plan I t TTT tanner to the iris plaintiff in order to arrange a marriage between his son and the second plaintiff daughter. A few days later, members of the two families met and drew up a written agreement (with provisions for a dowry of ARM,OHO and ARM,OHO for breach of the agreement known as the penalty clause) to effect the marriage.
Next morning,the ceremony of Nightmare, the customary manner of rectifying a betrothal was performed and at which the second plaintiff presented the first defendant with a gold sovereign about two weeks later the second plaintiff also presented the first defendant with a shirt, a dhoti and a shawl, and the first pendant in return presented the first plaintiff with a sari and a piece of material for making a blouse to go with it. Subsequently, the first defendant repudiated his promise to marry the first plaintiff.
In the present proceedings, the plaintiff claimed, damages against the first defendant for breach of promise of marriage. The first defendant pleaded, inter alai the incapacity of the first plaintiff to enter into the contract to marry she being a minor then. So the court held that this marriage contracts entered into minors are different from other classes of contracts and do not come within the principle laid down in Mirror Beebe.
The first plaintiff could maintain an action on the agreement entered into between her father acting as a guardian and on her behalf and the first defendant whereby the latter promised to marry the first defendant. It is stated in the Contract Act 1950 where: “If a person, incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he is legally bound to support is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person. ”