In this essay I will examine The Amazing Racers’s claims against Sokkies under the
following: their contractual claim; and what kind of suit they can bring for money
owing in terms of the contract. It is necessary to note that Sokkies is a minor because
he is under the age of 18 (Children’s Act 17), and therefore has limited capacity to
perform juristic acts.
The contractual claim
The most important rule governing contractual capacity is that ‘unassisted minors
cannot incur binding contractual obligations’ (Edelstein). Minors have limited
capacity to perform juristic acts to protect them from their ‘recklessness and
immaturity of judgment’.
Sokkies was an unassisted minor as neither of his guardians were aware of the
material terms of his contract with The Amazing Racers, when he entered into the
contract. Furthermore, it appears that no ratification occurred, as ratification requires
the guardian’s informed consent of the material terms of the contract (Baddeley;
Fouche). As his guardians were unaware of the contract’s material terms (the price),
their admiration of his shoes cannot constitute ratification. Therefore Sokkies’
guardians did not ratify the contract, even tacitly, and he is an unassisted minor who
cannot incur contractual liability (Edelstein).
Thus there is a ‘limping contract’ between Sokkies and The Amazing Racers, in
which Sokkies has no contractual obligations, but The Amazing Racers is bound to
fulfill their side of the contract. Sokkies has the capacity to acquire ownership but
cannot alienate ownership, and becomes owner of the Pumas due to a real agreement.
As Sokkies has no contractual obligations, he can repudiate the contract and ‘resile
from it with impunity’ (Voet as cited in Edelstein). He can walk away from the
contract and cannot be compelled to pay the remaining R500. Because he is
unassisted, they have no contractual remedies. Thus, The Amazing Racers does not
have a valid contractual claim against Sokkies for specific performance or damages
for breach of contract (full consequential loss of R1000).
Remedy for undue enrichment
Assuming that The Amazing Racers does not have a contractual claim against
Sokkies, it needs to be determined whether they have a valid enrichment claim against
Sokkies. A limping contract exists between them: the major party has performed by
delivering the Pumas, and the minor now chooses to repudiate. The Amazing Racers
cannot use the rei vindicatio to vindicate the Pumas as ownership of the Pumas had
validly transferred to Sokkies, as an unassisted minor.
Therefore, as there is no contractual claim against Sokkies, The Amazing Racers can
bring a claim against Sokkies for undue enrichment (Edelstein). This enrichment
claim is available upon fulfillment of its requirements: 1.Sokkies has been factually
enriched, and The Amazing Racers has been factually impoverished; 2.There is a
causal link between Sokkies’ enrichment and The Amazing Racer’s impoverishment;
3.There is no valid legal reason that justifies the enrichment of Sokkies at the
Amazing Racer’s expense, or which justifies the retention of the enrichment by
Sokkies.
following: their contractual claim; and what kind of suit they can bring for money
owing in terms of the contract. It is necessary to note that Sokkies is a minor because
he is under the age of 18 (Children’s Act 17), and therefore has limited capacity to
perform juristic acts.
The contractual claim
The most important rule governing contractual capacity is that ‘unassisted minors
cannot incur binding contractual obligations’ (Edelstein). Minors have limited
capacity to perform juristic acts to protect them from their ‘recklessness and
immaturity of judgment’.
Sokkies was an unassisted minor as neither of his guardians were aware of the
material terms of his contract with The Amazing Racers, when he entered into the
contract. Furthermore, it appears that no ratification occurred, as ratification requires
the guardian’s informed consent of the material terms of the contract (Baddeley;
Fouche). As his guardians were unaware of the contract’s material terms (the price),
their admiration of his shoes cannot constitute ratification. Therefore Sokkies’
guardians did not ratify the contract, even tacitly, and he is an unassisted minor who
cannot incur contractual liability (Edelstein).
Thus there is a ‘limping contract’ between Sokkies and The Amazing Racers, in
which Sokkies has no contractual obligations, but The Amazing Racers is bound to
fulfill their side of the contract. Sokkies has the capacity to acquire ownership but
cannot alienate ownership, and becomes owner of the Pumas due to a real agreement.
As Sokkies has no contractual obligations, he can repudiate the contract and ‘resile
from it with impunity’ (Voet as cited in Edelstein). He can walk away from the
contract and cannot be compelled to pay the remaining R500. Because he is
unassisted, they have no contractual remedies. Thus, The Amazing Racers does not
have a valid contractual claim against Sokkies for specific performance or damages
for breach of contract (full consequential loss of R1000).
Remedy for undue enrichment
Assuming that The Amazing Racers does not have a contractual claim against
Sokkies, it needs to be determined whether they have a valid enrichment claim against
Sokkies. A limping contract exists between them: the major party has performed by
delivering the Pumas, and the minor now chooses to repudiate. The Amazing Racers
cannot use the rei vindicatio to vindicate the Pumas as ownership of the Pumas had
validly transferred to Sokkies, as an unassisted minor.
Therefore, as there is no contractual claim against Sokkies, The Amazing Racers can
bring a claim against Sokkies for undue enrichment (Edelstein). This enrichment
claim is available upon fulfillment of its requirements: 1.Sokkies has been factually
enriched, and The Amazing Racers has been factually impoverished; 2.There is a
causal link between Sokkies’ enrichment and The Amazing Racer’s impoverishment;
3.There is no valid legal reason that justifies the enrichment of Sokkies at the
Amazing Racer’s expense, or which justifies the retention of the enrichment by
Sokkies.
