Roberts v Gray: CA 1913

Child’s Training Contract was a Necessity

The infant had entered into a contract to go on a tour as a professional billiard player.
Held: The contract could be construed as one for necessaries, because it was for teaching, instruction and employment.
Liability continued despite the fact that it was in part executory.
Hamilton LJ was: ‘unable to appreciate why a contract which is in itself binding, because it is a contract for necessaries not qualified by unreasonable terms, can cease to be binding merely because executory . . If the contract is binding at all, it must be binding for all such remedies as are appropriate to the breach of it.’

Cozens-Hardy MR L, Hamilton LJ
[1913] 1 KB 520, [1911-13] All ER Rep 870, 82 LJKB 362, 108 LT 232, 29 TLR 149, 57 Sol Jo 143
England and Wales

Contract, Children

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.640528