Skip to main content

Liability for necessaries

              Liability for necessaries

Section 68 of the Indian contract act provides for the liability for necessaries supplied 2 persons incompetent to contract. Section 68 renders claim for necessary supply to person incapable of contacting or on his account.

           If a person incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessary suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.

Meaning of “necessaries”

The liability is only for necessaries, but there is no definition of the term “necessaries”| in the act. We may consequently turn to judicial decisions to determine its precise import. An illustrative statement of the meaning of the term is to be found in the judgment of Alderson B in Chapple versus Cooper :

 “Things necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. In the first place, food, raiment, lodging, and others are a necessity. About these there is no doubt. Again, as the proper cultivation of the mind is as expedient as the support of the body, instruction in art or trade, or intellectual moral and religious education may be necessary also.”

Thus, “What is necessary” is a relative fact to be determined with reference to the fortune and circumstances of the particular minor; articles, therefore, that to one person might be mere conveniences or matter of taste, may in the case of another, be considered necessaries, where the usage of society renders them proper for a person in the rank of life in which the infant moves. The infant’s need of things may also sometimes depend on the peculiar circumstances under which they are purchased and the uses to which they are put. For instance articles purchased by an infant for his wedding may be deemed necessary while under ordinary circumstances same articles may not be considered. Wedding presents for the brides of the infants may be necessary but where such marriage is forbidden by law the position will be different. Where the funds are supplied to a minor for the marriage of a minor female in the final family the lender may be able to get him reimbursed from the property of the minor. The debt incurred for performing the funeral obsequies of the father of a minor is a necessary. Where a minor is involved in a litigation threatening his property or liberty expenses reasonably incurred on his defense may be recovered from his estate. 

In Peters versus Fleming, the court took judicial notice that it was from prima facie not unreasonable that an undergraduate at the college should have a watch and consequently a watch chain and therefore it was a question of fact whether the watch chain supplied on credit was such as what as was necessary to support himself properly in his degree.

PARKE B says: “All such articles as are purely ornamental or to be rejected, as they cannot be requisite for anyone.” Possibly there may be exceptional cases in which things purely ornamental may be necessary. The burden lies upon the supplier to prove that the ornamental thing is special necessary for the minor. Thus, where a man was supplied a pair of jewelled solitaries is an antique goblet and though he moved in high society he was held not liable as the plaintiff could not prove the articles were specially necessary for the minor. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree