PRESCRIBED CASE LAW
Van Dyk v South African Railways and Harbours 1956 (4) SA 410 (W)
Principle
• Where a guardian assists a minor in entering into a contract, guardian does not need to know specific terms
of contract
• Guardian only needs to know and consent to general nature of contract
Facts
• Minor, Van Dyk, concluded an employment contract with SA Railways and Harbours for position of railway
officer
• Minor undertook not to terminate agreement within three years of date of contract
• Upon majority, minor sought to declare the contract void
• Minor asserted that guardian was not present at time of contract conclusion and was unaware of specific
terms of contract
Court’s Finding
• Court held that, even though guardian was unaware of precise terms of agreement, there was evidence to
suggest guardian had consented to type of contract and minor therefore bound by contract
Marshall v National Wool Industries Ltd 1924 OPD 238
Principle
• Where guardian assist a minor with entering into contract, guardian does not incur personal liability in terms
of contract
Facts
• Minor, Marshall, purchased shares from National Wool Industries with assistance of guardian (father)
• When minor did not pay balance of purchase price, National Wool industries sued guardian for outstanding
balance
Court’s Findings
• Court held that minor was personally liable to perform on contract, as minor was a party to contract, not
guardian
• Therefore National Wool Industries must litigate against minor for outstanding balance
Wood v Davies 1934 CPD 250
Principle
• Where court grants remedy of restitutio in integrum for an assisted contract that is, or has become,
prejudicial to best interests of minor, minor must restore what they have received from other party and
recover what they have performed in terms of contract
Facts
• Minor’s guardian purchased a house from Davies on behalf of minor, Wood
• On majority, minor sought to terminate contract of sale
,Court’s Findings
• Court held that contract was patently prejudicial to interests of minor as purchase price was excessive and
there were many onerous contractual clauses
• Payments would have eroded a substantial portion of an inheritance benefit and purchase was regarded
unnecessary
• Wood was entitled to to rescind contract of sale thus returned property and recovered all monies, including
interest
• Wood was enriched by occupation of house for period of time before remedy granted, thus Wood
compensated Davies
Tanne v Foggit 1938 TPD 43
Principle
• Where minor enters into contract without assistance of guardian, minor is not bound to contract
• Therefore not liable to perform in terms of contract
Facts
• Minor, Foggit, entered into contract with Tanne, owner of a college, for typing lessons
• Contract concluded without assistance of minor’s guardian
• Payment for lessons was due in advance and minor was required to give one months notice if minor wanted
to terminate contract
• After paying for and attending lessons for one month, minor stopped attending without notice or payment
• Tanne sued minor for payment of outstanding fees for that one month
Court’s Findings
• Court held minor was not liable for contract because they entered into contract without assistance of
guardian
• Minor was therefore not contractually liable and did not have to pay outstanding fees
Stuttaford and Co. V Oberholzer 1921 CPD 855
Principle
• Minor who enters into an unassisted contract can become bound by contract if they, or their guardian, ratify
the contract expressly of tacitly upon attaining majority
Facts
• Case provides an illustration of where a minor tacitly ratifies a contract themselves
• Minor, Oberholzer, purchased a motorcycle on instalments without assistance of guardian
• Upon majority, continued to use motorcycle without paying instalments
• Other party, Stuttaford and Co., sued minor for outstanding payment
• Minor contended they were not bound to contract as it was unassisted
• Minor continued using motorcycle after attaining majority, acting as an owner or it, even after party instituted
legal proceedings, thus exercising ownership rights over motorcycle
, Court’s Findings
• Court held that minor was bound by contract after tacitly ratifying contract by continuing use of it after
attaining majority thus giving their own consent contract after it had been concluded
Reloomel v Ramsay 1920 TPD 371
Principle
• Necessities are things that are required for household of spouses in accordance with their standard of
lifestyles
Facts
• Dr. Ramsay left his wife, to whom he was married out of community of property, and their two children for a
year
• Dr. Ramsay left a monthly allowance of 30 pounds for household expenses and forbade his wife to buy
anything on credit
• Upon his return he discovered his wife had bought 13.85 pounds worth of silk material from Reloomel to
make clothes for herself and their children
• Ramsay refused to pay for this debt, on basis that items were not household necessities and wife was
instructed not to incur debt on husband’s behalf
Court’s Findings
• Court held that necessities are things required for household of spouses in accordance with their status,
mode of living, and usual customs of place when they live
• What may be regarded as a necessity in case of spouses who live a life of luxury will not be regarded as a
necessity in case of spouses who live more modestly
• Clothing was regarded as a necessity based on how they lived up to time of Dr. Ramsay’s absence thus he
had to pay outstanding amount
• Standard of living differs from home to home
Van Dyk v South African Railways and Harbours 1956 (4) SA 410 (W)
Principle
• Where a guardian assists a minor in entering into a contract, guardian does not need to know specific terms
of contract
• Guardian only needs to know and consent to general nature of contract
Facts
• Minor, Van Dyk, concluded an employment contract with SA Railways and Harbours for position of railway
officer
• Minor undertook not to terminate agreement within three years of date of contract
• Upon majority, minor sought to declare the contract void
• Minor asserted that guardian was not present at time of contract conclusion and was unaware of specific
terms of contract
Court’s Finding
• Court held that, even though guardian was unaware of precise terms of agreement, there was evidence to
suggest guardian had consented to type of contract and minor therefore bound by contract
Marshall v National Wool Industries Ltd 1924 OPD 238
Principle
• Where guardian assist a minor with entering into contract, guardian does not incur personal liability in terms
of contract
Facts
• Minor, Marshall, purchased shares from National Wool Industries with assistance of guardian (father)
• When minor did not pay balance of purchase price, National Wool industries sued guardian for outstanding
balance
Court’s Findings
• Court held that minor was personally liable to perform on contract, as minor was a party to contract, not
guardian
• Therefore National Wool Industries must litigate against minor for outstanding balance
Wood v Davies 1934 CPD 250
Principle
• Where court grants remedy of restitutio in integrum for an assisted contract that is, or has become,
prejudicial to best interests of minor, minor must restore what they have received from other party and
recover what they have performed in terms of contract
Facts
• Minor’s guardian purchased a house from Davies on behalf of minor, Wood
• On majority, minor sought to terminate contract of sale
,Court’s Findings
• Court held that contract was patently prejudicial to interests of minor as purchase price was excessive and
there were many onerous contractual clauses
• Payments would have eroded a substantial portion of an inheritance benefit and purchase was regarded
unnecessary
• Wood was entitled to to rescind contract of sale thus returned property and recovered all monies, including
interest
• Wood was enriched by occupation of house for period of time before remedy granted, thus Wood
compensated Davies
Tanne v Foggit 1938 TPD 43
Principle
• Where minor enters into contract without assistance of guardian, minor is not bound to contract
• Therefore not liable to perform in terms of contract
Facts
• Minor, Foggit, entered into contract with Tanne, owner of a college, for typing lessons
• Contract concluded without assistance of minor’s guardian
• Payment for lessons was due in advance and minor was required to give one months notice if minor wanted
to terminate contract
• After paying for and attending lessons for one month, minor stopped attending without notice or payment
• Tanne sued minor for payment of outstanding fees for that one month
Court’s Findings
• Court held minor was not liable for contract because they entered into contract without assistance of
guardian
• Minor was therefore not contractually liable and did not have to pay outstanding fees
Stuttaford and Co. V Oberholzer 1921 CPD 855
Principle
• Minor who enters into an unassisted contract can become bound by contract if they, or their guardian, ratify
the contract expressly of tacitly upon attaining majority
Facts
• Case provides an illustration of where a minor tacitly ratifies a contract themselves
• Minor, Oberholzer, purchased a motorcycle on instalments without assistance of guardian
• Upon majority, continued to use motorcycle without paying instalments
• Other party, Stuttaford and Co., sued minor for outstanding payment
• Minor contended they were not bound to contract as it was unassisted
• Minor continued using motorcycle after attaining majority, acting as an owner or it, even after party instituted
legal proceedings, thus exercising ownership rights over motorcycle
, Court’s Findings
• Court held that minor was bound by contract after tacitly ratifying contract by continuing use of it after
attaining majority thus giving their own consent contract after it had been concluded
Reloomel v Ramsay 1920 TPD 371
Principle
• Necessities are things that are required for household of spouses in accordance with their standard of
lifestyles
Facts
• Dr. Ramsay left his wife, to whom he was married out of community of property, and their two children for a
year
• Dr. Ramsay left a monthly allowance of 30 pounds for household expenses and forbade his wife to buy
anything on credit
• Upon his return he discovered his wife had bought 13.85 pounds worth of silk material from Reloomel to
make clothes for herself and their children
• Ramsay refused to pay for this debt, on basis that items were not household necessities and wife was
instructed not to incur debt on husband’s behalf
Court’s Findings
• Court held that necessities are things required for household of spouses in accordance with their status,
mode of living, and usual customs of place when they live
• What may be regarded as a necessity in case of spouses who live a life of luxury will not be regarded as a
necessity in case of spouses who live more modestly
• Clothing was regarded as a necessity based on how they lived up to time of Dr. Ramsay’s absence thus he
had to pay outstanding amount
• Standard of living differs from home to home
