Case Summary: Nash v. Inman (1908) 2 KB 1

A tailor (plaintiff) supplied 13 waistcoats and other clothing to an undergraduate student (defendant), who was a minor at the time.
The student refused to pay for the goods, arguing that he was not legally bound to the contract.
The tailor sued to recover the price of the goods supplied.

The court ruled in favor of the minor (defendant), holding that:
Definition of Necessaries:
- Necessaries are goods or services that are suitable to a minor’s condition in life and actual needs at the time of sale.
- Even if the goods were generally suitable for the minor’s social status, they must also be required by the minor at that time.
Burden of Proof:
- The plaintiff (tailor) had the responsibility to prove that the goods were actually necessary for the minor.
- Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the minor needed the clothing at that time, the contract was declared void ab initio (invalid from the beginning).

If a minor purchases necessary goods, they must pay a reasonable price.
However, if the contract involves services, any claim for recovery lies against the minor’s estate rather than the minor personally.

Section 11 – Competency to Contract:
- A minor is not competent to contract, and any contract with a minor is void ab initio.
Section 68 – Necessaries Supplied to a Minor:
- If a minor is supplied with necessaries suited to their condition, the supplier can recover the cost from the minor’s property, not from the minor personally.
- Like English law, necessaries must be proven to be essential at the time of supply.

All contracts with minors are void, including those for goods unless proven as necessaries.

Aspect	English Law (Nash v. Inman)	Indian Law (Mohori Bibee Case)
Contract with a Minor	Can be valid if for necessaries	Always void regardless of benefit
Burden of Proof	On the supplier to prove necessity	On the supplier, but the contract is still void
Recovery of Payment	Minor must pay for necessaries	Supplier can recover from minor’s property, not personally

In English law, a minor must pay for necessaries, but the burden of proof is on the supplier.
In Indian law, the contract remains void, but the supplier can recover costs from the minor’s estate if it is proven to be for necessaries.
In Nash v. Inman, since the tailor failed to prove necessity, the contract was void and the minor was not required to pay.