As a General Rule: Minors contracts are either voidable or void, but there are two exceptions.

A: Where the contract is for necessary goods The court will consider (I) the condition in life and (II) actual requirements (I) In Chapple v Cooper the minor comes from a rich family so the court consider silver pin as necessary goods fro his condition in life. (II) In Nash v Inman, the student already has plenty of fancy waistcoats at home and the store owner failed to establish the waistcoat is actual requirement for the student. Therefore the contract is no enforceable. B: For beneficial contracts of service If the service is for the benefit of the minor then the contract is enforceable. Cases: Chaplin v Leslie Ferwin; Proform Sports v Proactive Sports; Mercantile Union v Ball Whether the protection given is adequate?? Protection for minor? Protection for vendor?