In the case of Bojczuk v Gregorcewicz [1961] SASR 128, the court addressed whether a contract entered into by a minor (the defendant) for a loan could be enforced on the grounds of being a “contract for necessaries.”
Key Facts
– The defendant, a minor living in Poland, borrowed money from the plaintiff, her Australian relative, to fund her emigration to Australia.
– Despite agreeing to repay the loan, the defendant failed to do so, prompting the plaintiff to sue for recovery.
– The defendant argued her minority status, claiming that the loan was not enforceable.
Court’s Decision in Bojczuk v Gregorcewicz
The court found in favor of the defendant, holding that the loan was not a contract for necessaries. It reasoned that:
– “Necessaries” under contract law typically include essentials for a minor’s basic needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter—items necessary for survival and well-being.
– The defendant had both employment and accommodation in Poland, which satisfied her needs. Emigrating to Australia was therefore not necessary for her maintenance or livelihood.
– Since the purpose of the loan (emigration to Australia) was not deemed essential to the defendant’s existence, the contract did not meet the threshold of a necessary.
Legal Principle
This case reinforces the principle that for a minor to be liable on a contract, the subject matter of the contract must be essential to their basic needs. Since the defendant’s relocation to Australia did not meet this standard, the contract was unenforceable as a contract for necessaries.
References:
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/34046-sample.pdf?v=1569899531
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/25279-sample.pdf
- https://www.transtutors.com/questions/case-study-bojczuk-v-gregorcewicz-1961-sasr-128-2-451-a-minor-who-lived-in-poland-an-7092429.htm
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: