(b) Peteftan infant obtained a bank overdraft by pretending that he was over eighteen. The bank has informed his father that unless the overdraft is repaid, they will prosecute Peter for money obtained by deception. In great distress his father executes a deed to repay the overdraft himself Is he liable?

(b) Section 1 of the Infants Relief Act 1874, rendres all contracts entered into with an infant for repayment of money as absolutely void, and does not recognize any exception even if an infant obtains a loan of money by fraudulently representing that he is of full age.

Any guarantee given towards such contract is also ineffective. i.e. the guarantor cannot be sued if the infant fails to pay

In this problem before us there are two things involved — the contract bet-ween Peter and the Bank is void, and secondly the bank has obtained the promise to pay that amount from Peter’s father under the threat of Peter’s prosecution. Under similar circumstances which occurred in Kaufman v Gerson, 1940, it was held that the defendant was not liable.

(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *