Enforceable Contract, Contract with Minor, Doctrine of Privity

This study discusses the concepts of enforceable contract, contract with minor, and doctrine of privity in the context of a case study involving Karacal Kitchens. It explores the essential elements of an enforceable contract, the legal considerations when entering into a contract with a minor, and the doctrine of privity that limits the rights of third parties in a contract. The study concludes with an analysis of the implications for the parties involved in the case study.

Business and Corporate Law

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Enforceable Contract.......................................................................................................................3
Contract with Minor........................................................................................................................4
Doctrine of Privity...........................................................................................................................5
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................6
References........................................................................................................................................7

Introduction
Contract can be referred as a promise which can legally bind the parties who have agreed the
terms of the contract. In general a contract can be enforced by and against the parties relating to
the contract (Klee, 2015). Present case study revolves around the case study of Karacal Kitchens.
The study comprises discussion relating to enforceable contract, contract with minor and
doctrine of privity to contract in order to make appropriate decision relating to the case study of
Karacal Kitchens.
Enforceable Contract
The essential elements of an enforceable contract are offer, acceptance, consideration, consent by
both the parties, lawful subject matter of the contract and competency of parties in order to make
the contract (Mason, 2016).
Offer- It is expression of eagerness of an individual or a party to contract with another party on
the basis of some terms. Further, the same will be binding only in case it is accepted by the other
party.
Acceptance- It can be referred as unqualified expression of acceptance of terms of an offer. It
can be accepted by the person with whom agreement has been made or by the agent who is
authorized to act on its behalf.
Consideration- a bargaining that is normally needed, property or services, the supply of money
or a promise to assume, or not assume a particular act in exchange for something of worth.
Capacity -the person who is entering into a legal relation should be of sound mind and legal age.
Intention- the parties should enter into legal relation.
Certainty - the contract within the parties must be complete, certain, binding and clear.
However in case of absence of any of the above elements in the contact than it will signify that
there is no agreement or the agreement is not enforceable.

In the present case study, there is enforceable agreement within the three parties Nia and Barry;
Mark Smith and Barry and Barry and Kara and Karl Kelsey. There is a binding agreement within
three of the parties as there is an offer as well as acceptance. In case of Barry and Nia, where the
entire elements required for making enforceable contract is available. The first binding
agreement was within Kara and Karl Kelsey and Barry as he was associated and working with
her from last 8 years and had agreement with the company. Further Barry and Nia have started a
separate contract and they are also under a binding contract, though Kara and Karl Kelsey are not
party to contract even they helped for the completion of work. On the other hand there is no
enforceable contact between the Nia and Kara and Kelsey as the offer was not given to them by
Nia they have just accepted the request of Barry as they were the older associates.
Contract with Minor
The concept or minors is different in all the jurisdictions. The age in which the minor can enter
into a legally binding contract is different in every nation. In Australia, minor is a person who
doesn’t reach to the age of 18. However there is a need to consider a contact with a minor from
time to time. As per the common law, in Australia minor is void apart from the limited situations.
The exceptions as per the common rules are contracts for necessities and contracts for
employment. The contacts which are harmful for minors are void. Terms are changed according
to countries for example in NSW Australia the minimum age of employment and employment of
children is synchronized only in convinced business. Therefore, in NSW, service of children
below fifteen years of age in exhibition, entertainment, cinematography or door-to-door sales is
regulated by the Office for Children - Children’s Guardian (OCCG). In such type of business
employees should be certified to utilize children and fulfill with the legislated Code of Practice
(Nordin, at.el 2015).
As per the Australian law , in case of a beneficial agreement of employment with the minor than
there will be a binding agreement except, when the agreement is rejected by the minor when they
cross the age of 18 years or majority. The contract that is done with the minor will be considered
as a complete with the intension that and if some benefits are achieved from the contact it will be
completely hold by the minor only. In condition, where the domineering clauses would create the

employment contract completely not for the advantage of the Minor, however in that case
contact will be void.
In accordance with judgment made in case of As per Hamilton v Lethbridge,[26] the moderate
view was applied is that under any contract in where there are enduring human rights and duties
because of which the Minor has taken a profit, would stay enforceable except agreement
(Lawyers, 2016). The person who is minor doesn’t have same contracting powers as adults have.
But as per the special contracts some contacts can be made. According to the Australian law
various contracts are not enforced by the law (De Sanctis, at.el 2016).
On the other hand minor can enforce the contract against the other party. Some contracts are
obligatory on the minor without the minor insisting them. For instance a legally binding contact
is made by the minor for services and goods which is important for the life (Robinson and
Gifford, 2019). The performance of minors of a contract might be definite. A minor can also
make an enforceable contact with the approval of the court. Agreement that provides the minor
some enduring legal responsibility are compulsory except the minor decide to choose out of the
contract earlier than, or logically soon after, they turn 18 (Bromberg, and Howard, 2016).
In the case study Mark is a minor. He has under the age of 18. But, neither Barry, Karl nor
Kesley cannot argue that there is no contract between them. As, right to repudiate contract is
available with the minor and not with other party. There will be binding contacts within the Mark
and the parties. Moreover, the decision of legal case of Hamilton v Lethbridge also asserts that
any contract in which continuing rights and duties to which Minor has benefit will remain
enforceable unless the same is cancelled by the former Minor.
Doctrine of Privity
The doctrine of privity of contract asserts that contract cannot confer any obligation upon a
person who is not a party to the contract (Hutchison and Siliquini-Cinelli, 2017). The basis of
principle of privity is that parties to contract should be only able to sue in order to enforce claim
as well as damages (Beale, Fauvarque-Cosson, Rutgers and Vogenauer, 2018). In accordance
with principle of doctrine of privity any third party which is not even distinctly related to the
involved parties, do not have any right to claim or sue against the parties involved in contract.

Poole (2016), specified that the scenario remains same even in case the third party is the
beneficiary. Thus, the core of doctrine of privity is that third party cannot sue the contracting
parties in order to enforce the beneficiary clause in the contract.
In present case as the contract was developed between Barry and Nia and quoted for $45000 for
the work. Further, no new contract or agreement was formed between Karacal Kitchens and Nia,
thus no claim can be made by Karacal Kitchens and Nia. The common assessment seen in cases
relating to ‘Doctrine of Privity’ court fairly settles on the basis of analyzing ‘Interest Theory’.
The theory asserts that ‘He that hath interest in promise require to have the action’. In other
words it can be stated that person can bring up action against the one who had interest in the
promise and not by any party which was completely alien to the promise. In general doctrine of
privity could be implemented only in case of contractual rights and obligations. The decision was
made in case of In Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v Mc Niece Bros Pty Ltd that doctrine of
privity developed injustice where third parties were intended to attain benefit from contract and
could be enforced directly (Agarwal, 2016.).
For instance in case A breaches the contract, but B suffers no damage in comparison to C. In this
case C can’t enforce but B can enforce contract so that appropriate claim can be received by C.
In present case of Karacal Kitchens cannot claim against Nia in case he argues on the basis of
‘privity of contract’. However, claim can be made by Barry against Nia in order to provide
required claim against Karacal Kitchens.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from above study that Nia can argue on the basis of ‘privity of contract’ as
Karacal Kitchens is a distinctive party because it was not involved in the contract between Nia
and Barry. However, claim can be made by Barry so that appropriate consideration is received
by Karacal Kitchens.

References
Agarwal S. (2018). Doctrine of Privity of Contract & its Exceptions. Retrieved from
https://lawtimesjournal.in/doctrine-privity-of-contract/.
Beale, H., Fauvarque-Cosson, B., Rutgers, J., & Vogenauer, S. (Eds.). (2018). Cases, materials
and text on contract law. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bromberg, M., & Howard, J. (2016). Red Bull: Does It Give You Wings or Cardiac
Disturbances? Modifying the Law Regarding Energy Drinks in Australia. Journal of law
and medicine, 24(2), 433-454.
De Sanctis, V., Soliman, A. T., Soliman, N. A., Elalaily, R., Delbon, P., Di Maio, S., &
Millimaggi, G. (2016). An essential approach to the age assessment in undocumented
minors in conflict with the law. Rivista Italiana di Medicina dell’Adolescenza, 14(1). 30-
32.
Dolin, K. (Ed.). (2018). Law and literature. Cambridge University Press.
Hutchison, A. & Siliquini-Cinelli, L. (2017). Beyond Common Law: Contractual Privity in
Australia and South Africa.
Klee, L. (2015). International construction contract law (No. s 1). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lawyers D. (2016). Contracting with Minors – is it even possible?. Retrieved from
https://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/contracting-with-minors-is-it-even-possible/.
Mason, K. (2016). Mason and Carter's restitution law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths.
McKendrick, E., & Liu, Q. (2015). Contract Law: Australian Edition. Macmillan International
Higher Education.
Nordin, R., Whelan, J., Aziz, S.N.A., Rajagopal, M.D., Mansor, I.M., Touma, M. and Ralton,
M., 2015. Unaccompanied & Denied: Regional Legal Framework for Unaccompanied
Minors Asylum Seekers (UMAS). Indon. L. Rev., 5(1), p.257.
Poole, J., (2016). Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Robinson, K., & Gifford, S. M. (2019). Life (forever) on hold: unaccompanied asylum-seeking
minors in Australia. Unaccompanied Young Migrants: Identity, Care and Justice, 1(1).
257.