Nash v. Inman
Rule established
A minor is only liable for 'necessaries' under the Sale of Goods Act; necessaries must be (1) suitable to the condition in life of the minor AND (2) at his actual requirements at the time of sale, if the minor is already adequately supplied, the goods are not necessaries.
Facts
- Inman (defendant) was a minor and an undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge
- Nash (plaintiff), a tailor, supplied clothing to Inman on credit, worth approximately £145
- The clothing included 11 fancy waistcoats described by Buckley LJ as "of an extravagant and ridiculous style"
- Inman's father gave evidence that his son was already adequately supplied with clothes suitable to his station in life before the purchases
- Inman refused to pay, pleading infancy (minority)
- Nash sued to recover the price
Issue
- Whether clothing supplied to a minor constitutes "necessaries" when the minor is already adequately supplied with goods of that type?
Held
- The Court of Appeal held for Inman; Nash could not recover
- "Necessaries" means goods suitable to the condition in life of the minor AND to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery
- Both conditions must be satisfied: (a) suitable to station; (b) not already adequately supplied
- The burden of proving that goods are necessaries lies on the supplier (plaintiff)
- Here, Inman was already adequately supplied with clothing; therefore the goods were not necessaries regardless of their suitability to his station
Ratio Decidendi
For goods to qualify as "necessaries" enforceable against a minor, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied: (1) the goods must be suitable to the condition in life of the minor; and (2) the minor must not be already adequately supplied with goods of that class at the time of sale. The onus of proving both conditions rests on the plaintiff/supplier. If the minor already has sufficient supply, the goods cannot be necessaries.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Core authority on the definition and limits of "necessaries" for minors.
- Part B: Indian equivalent: Section 68 ICA; liability under Section 68 is from the minor's PROPERTY (not personal liability); it is a quasi-contractual obligation, not a contractual one.
- Two-limb test: (1) suitable to station; (2) actual requirement. Burden on supplier.
- Problem questions: "Tailor supplies luxury suits to minor studying at expensive school" → still must prove minor didn't already have adequate clothing.
Source
Source: [1908] 2 KB 1
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.