Action by a master against his apprentice when the latter was of age for pounds 300, the balance of premium due under the defendant’s covenant in the apprenticeship deed. A clear question arose as to whether such a covenant was enforceable as such.
Held: It was not. An action may be maintained against an infant himself after he has attained his majority, to enforce the covenants of an unrepudiated deed of apprenticeship, since the deed was a proper one, the arrangement fair and the premium fair and reasonable.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘It is not true that you can sue an infant upon a bond given by him for the price of necessaries supplied to him with all the ordinary incidents of such an action . . You cannot sue the infant upon his bond as a bond. But if the bond is what is called a single bond – that is, if it is given only for the reasonable price of the necessaries supplied to the infant and there is no penalty, the infant can be sued upon it. . . It comes in the result to this, that a bond given by an infant for the price of necessaries does not prevent the obligee from recovering that price from him if the bond is a single one, and it is not relied on simply as a bond. In the same way an infant can be sued upon a covenant by deed for the price of necessaries but the case must be treated just as if there had been no deed.’
Judges:
Lord Esher MR
Citations:
[1891] 2 QB 369
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Contract, Children, Employment
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.640527