LAWS 203 - 'persons of unsound mind'.

Front

What if the contracting party is not mentally stable?

Back

If a contracting party is of unsound mind then the court may hold that the contract is voidable by that person.

Front

What is the first requirements that this judgement is conditional upon? Why?

Back

1) In the case of Scott, the court held that the contracting party must have been unaware of the essence of what the contract obligates them to do, at the time of entering into the bargain.

<-The contracting party does not have to know all of the details of the contract, they just have to comprehend what the contract entails for them. 

Front

What is the second requirements that this judgement is conditional upon? Why?

Back

In the case of Hart, the court held that the other party should have known or ought to have known that the contracting party was of unsound mind at the time of entering into the bargain.

<-However, even if the contracting party was seemingly sane, the court may still hold that the contract is voidable, if the other party has acted unconscionably in any way.

Front

What is an exception to this judgement? Why?

Back

Under s 124 of the CCLA and according to Parke B in the case of Flemming, even if the contracting party is of unsound mind, if the contract concerns the exchange of goods or services needed to sustain the parties current state in life, then the court may enforce such a bargain.

<-The onus to prove such a necessity at the time of entering into the bargain is on the person of unsound mind.

*Maybe revisit the end of the lecture section on 'exceptions to the general rule' as Masselot talked about an unconscionable purchase price which may be relevant in answering the tutorial question.