Eleven Fancy Waistcoats

What happened in the case of Nash v Inman?

Nash v Inman  [1908] 2 KB 1

Facts:

Nash, a tailor, sued a minor (Inman) to whom he had supplied clothes, including 11 fancy waistcoats. It was decided that, as Inman was an undergraduate at Cambridge University at the time, the clothes were suitable according to the minor's station in life. Unfortunately for the tailor, however, it was further decided that they were not necessary, as he already had sufficient clothing supplied by his father. When Nash claimed the cost of these clothes Inman sought to rely on lack of capacity and succeeded at first instance.

Held:

Minors are only under a legal obligation to pay for things where a contract supplies them with "necessaries" (things without which a person cannot reasonably exist and include food, clothing, lodging, education or training in a trade and essential services), or goods and services which are deemed beneficial to them - so no contract was enforceable.