Stuck on another business law case study!!!!?!??!?!?

Yep it's me again!!!!!





Please help me out on this one!!!





John, a 17 year old student who looks much older ,orders $1500.00 worth of food for an end-of-VCE party. The food is duly delivered and consumed and John refuses to pay. What are the legal rights of the food supplier?





I would think that it was the company's responsibility to ensure that the person with whom they were entering into contract with was already 18yrs old but i'm not sure whether or not this could be used as an arguement and i'm not saying what the legal rights of the food supplier are therefore not answering the question.....





so an answer to my question will be much appreciated!!!!





what are the legal rights of the food supplier?????are they suppose to be entitled anything? can they sue John for breach of contract even though the guy is not yet 18!!!!!!!!???!?!?!?Stuck on another business law case study!!!!?!??!?!?
Contracts not for necessaries (which is this) can be avoided by a minor at their election. The reason somebody under the age of 18 can't sign a contract is simply because unless it's for a necessary (accommodation, education, etc) they can't be held to it should everything go pear-shaped. In your scenario, the company's screwed. There's really nothing they can do to get John to pay.





Unless John told them he was 18 or over. They have a much stronger chance then at getting their money, should they choose to take it to court.





Check out any contract law textbook, namely sections on capacity. That will definitely help you establish what legal rights the supplier has.Stuck on another business law case study!!!!?!??!?!?
because it is food john is liable for the wholesale cost of the food
Ton is correct; it all comes down to whether or not the food is considered a necessity. Did the supplier know it was for a party and not personal consumption? Unless the seller can show the food was a necessity they get nothing.
The common law on this point has been modified in Victoria, and is now found in ss49-51 of your Supreme Court Act 1986 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/c鈥?/a>


By the question saying he was 17 seems to be a hint to have you say something about it's immaterial that he's almost 18, and immaterial if he ratifies the contract once he turns 18.





By the question saying it was a contract for food seems to be a hint that you should say something about the exception in s.49 - a contract for ';necessaries'; - and have you distinguish food that is necessary for his existence to this food for a party.





Basically, the food supplier just lost $1500 worth of food!