What counts as ‘necessaries’ for a minor?

Goods suitable to the minor’s station in life and actually needed at the time of sale and delivery—no sufficient existing supply.

Who must prove the goods were necessaries?

The supplier (plaintiff) bears the burden to show suitability and actual need at the time.

Why did Nash lose the case?

Inman, a minor, was already amply supplied with clothing; the fancy waistcoats were not ‘actually needed’, so the contract was not enforceable.

Are all contracts with minors void?

Generally void, except for contracts for necessaries, which are enforceable to the extent of a reasonable price.

Nash v. Inman

[1908] 2 KB 1 — Minors & Necessaries • Burden of Proof • Tailor’s Claim Fails

King’s Bench Division 1908 [1908] 2 KB 1 Contract • Capacity ~6 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

A Savile Row tailor sold clothes on credit to a Cambridge student who was a minor. The student refused to pay. The Court held that the items (including 11 fancy waistcoats) were not necessaries because he was already well supplied. For minors, only necessaries are enforceable—and the supplier must prove this.

Issues

Were the goods supplied “necessaries” for the minor?
If not necessaries, was the contract enforceable?
Who carries the burden to prove (or disprove) necessity?

Rules

Necessaries test: Goods must be (a) suitable to the minor’s station in life and (b) actually needed at the time of sale and delivery.
If the minor already has enough of such goods, they are not necessaries.
Contracts with minors are generally void, except for necessaries (recoverable at a reasonable price).
Burden of proof: The seller must show the goods were necessaries.

The rule protects minors from non-essential credit purchases.

Facts — Timeline

Sale → Refusal → Suit → Holding

Seller: Nash, a Savile Row tailor, supplies clothing on credit.

Buyer: Inman, a Cambridge student and a minor.

Items: Included 11 fancy waistcoats; total ≈ £145.

Refusal: Inman declines to pay; pleads infancy.

Held: Not necessaries; student already amply supplied. Claim fails.

Timeline for Nash v. Inman: supply, refusal, lawsuit, and judgment

Arguments

Appellant (Nash, Tailor)

Goods were suitable to the student’s life and status.
Payment due as necessaries supplied on credit.

Respondent (Inman, Minor)

Already sufficiently clothed; no “actual need”.
Seller cannot enforce non-necessary goods against a minor.

Judgment

For the Minor (Inman)

The Court held the clothes were not necessaries because Inman already had adequate clothing. The contract was not enforceable against the minor. The onus to prove necessity was on Nash, and he failed to do so.

Judgment concept: not necessaries, claim dismissed

Ratio (Legal Principle)

Necessaries must be both suitable to the minor’s condition in life and actually required at the time of supply; if already sufficiently supplied, the seller cannot recover. The seller bears the burden.

Why It Matters

Shields minors from non-essential credit purchases.
Reminds merchants: check actual need and status before supplying on credit.
Clarifies burden of proof in “necessaries” litigation.

Key Takeaways

Minor contracts are generally void—except necessaries.
Necessaries = suitable + actually needed (no sufficient supply).
Supplier carries the burden to prove necessity.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Fit & Need, or No Deed.”

Fit? Suitable to status and life.
Need? Actually required at supply time.
Then Pay? Only if 1 + 2 are proven by the seller.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Were the supplied garments “necessaries” so that the minor is liable?

Rule

Necessaries = suitable to life + actually needed then; seller bears burden.

Application

Student already had ample clothing; fancy waistcoats not needed when supplied.

Conclusion

Not necessaries; seller cannot enforce payment against the minor.

Glossary

Necessaries: Goods/services suitable to a minor’s condition and actually needed at the time.
Infancy: Legal status of a minor lacking full contractual capacity.
Burden of Proof: Duty to prove facts in court; here, the seller must prove necessity.