CONTRACT TUTORIALS QUESTION 2 (CAPACITY TO CONTRACT)

The area of law in this problem question is Capacity to contract and the issues arising therefrom
are;
Whether or not Abigi has full legal capacity to enter into contractual relation with respect
to her age.
At common law persons below the age of 21yrs are deemed to be minor or infants for the
purposes of contracts and have only limited capacity to contract. This position however was
changed by the Family Law Reform Act of 1669 in the UK, which lowered the age of majority to
18yrs.This statute of course has no application in Ghana, not being an English statute of general
application. With respect to the definition of minority under Ghanaian Law, section 32 of the
interpretation Act ,1960 (CA 4) defines an infant as a person below the age of 21yrs.The
Companies code also defines an infant as any natural person under the age of 21yrs.However,
recent legislations tend to adopt 18yrs as the age of majority for the purpose of contractual
liabilities. This is illustrated in the Children’s Act ,1998(Act 560) and also in Article 28 of the
1992 constitution of Ghana which both define a child as a person below the age of 18yrs. The
position, however remains unclear since there is no statutory provision which stipulates the age
of majority for the purposes of contractual liability to be 18years.Therefore, in the absence of
such statutory provision the common law age of majority of 21 years remains applicable in
Ghana. With regards to the present fact, Abigi, who is 18 years of age, lacks the full capacity to
enter into the contractual relations. Therefore, Abigi needs to be protected under the law since
Abigi is still a minor.

Whether or not Abigi is bound by the contract to learn a music career under the tutelage of
Ambulley. If so what is the legal effect of the terms of the contract being harsh and onerous
The principle at common law is that where an infant enters into a contract under which he receives
instructions or training, the contract is binding on the infant, provided that the terms of the contract
construed as a whole, are substantially to the benefit of the infant. In Clements v. London &
Northern Railway; a minor, who was a railway porter agreed to join an insurance scheme to which
his employer contributed. Under the scheme he agreed to give up any claims for injury which he
may be entitled to under the Employers’ liability Act. It was found that his rights under the scheme
were in some ways, more and in other ways less beneficial than those under the Act. The issue was
whether the contract was enforceable against him. The court held that the contract construed as a
whole was beneficial to the infant as was there binding on him. From the present fact, Abigi went
to learn a music career under the tutelage Ghana’s showbiz icon, Soul Brother Ambulley. The
contract construed as a whole is beneficial to Abigi and was therefore bound by the contract.
However, it is a well-established The principle is that no contract is binding on a minor if it is
prejudicial to his interest, even if it would otherwise be valid. Thus where it is established that the
goods or service qualify as necessaries the minor will not be bound if the terms of the contract are
harsh and onerous. In Fawcett v.Smethurst
 in De Francesco v. Barnum, the facts are that, a fourteen-year-old girl bound herself by an
apprenticeship contract to the plaintiff for a period of 7 years to be taught stage dancing. The terms
of the agreement included that: the infant would not marry during the period of apprenticeship; the
infant could not accept any professional arrangements without the plaintiff’s prior consent. The
court held that the provision of the contract, considered as a whole were harsh and unreasonable
and not to the benefit of the infant. The contract was therefore unenforceable. From the current
fact, the terms of the contract restricted Abigi from putting up any show of his own; and any money
he would earn went into his trainer’s (Ambulley’s) coffers. Also, Abigi was prevented from
making any arrangements to record music 5 years after his apprenticeship, except done in the name
of Ambulley. The terms of the contract, construed as a whole, were hash and unreasonable. The
contract was therefore unenforceable against Abigi.