[DIVISIONAL COURT]

VALENTINI v. CANALI

Infant - Contract - Infants' Relief Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 62), s. 1.

By s. 1 of the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, "All contracts, whether by specialty or by simple contract, henceforth entered into by infants for the repayment of money lent or to be lent, or for goods supplied or to be supplied (other than contracts for necessaries) and all accounts stated with infants shall be absolutely void; provided always that this enactment shall not invalidate any contract into which an infant may, by any existing or future statute, or by the rules of common law or equity, enter, except such as now by law are voidable."

The plaintiff, an infant, agreed with the defendant to become tenant of a house, and to pay a certain sum for the furniture therein. The plaintiff paid the defendant part of this sum and occupied the house, and used the furniture during several months:-

Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled under the section to recover back the amount paid by him to the defendant.

APPEAL from the Woolwich County Court in an action remitted for trial from the Chancery Division in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that a contract by which he agreed with the defendant to become tenant of a house, and to pay 102l. for the furniture therein, was void, and the return of 68l. paid by him on account, on the ground that he was an infant at the time when he entered into the contract. It appeared that the plaintiff had occupied the premises and used the furniture for some months. The judge found in the plaintiff's favour on the issue of infancy, declared the contract to be void, and ordered a promissory note given by the plaintiff for the balance due for the furniture to be cancelled, but refused to order the return of the sum paid. The plaintiff appealed.

J. R. Paget, for the plaintiff. By s. 1 of the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, "contracts entered into by infants for goods supplied" are declared to be "absolutely void." It is submitted that the effect of the section is to entitle the plaintiff to recover back money paid by him under a contract which has been pronounced void as upon a complete failure of consideration. [He referred to Pollock on Contracts, 3rd ed. p. 62; Anson on Contracts, 5th ed. p. 111.]

H. A. Forman, for the defendant, was not heard.

LORD COLERIDGE, C.J.I am of opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. Under the contract in question, which was one for his advantage, the plaintiff, an infant, undertook to pay the defendant a sum of money. He paid the defendant part of this sum, and gave him a promissory note for the balance. The judge satisfied himself that the plaintiff was an infant at the time when he entered into the contract, and, having satisfied himself of this, did, in my opinion, justice according to law. He set aside the contract, and he ordered the promissory note to be cancelled.

It is now contended that, in addition to this relief, the plaintiff was entitled to an order for the re-payment of the sum paid by him to the defendant as money paid under a contract declared to be void. No doubt the words of s. 1 of the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, are strong and general, but a reasonable construction ought to be put upon them. The construction which has been contended for on behalf of the plaintiff would involve a violation of natural justice. When an infant has paid for something and has consumed or used it, it is contrary to natural justice that he should recover back the money which he has paid. Here the infant plaintiff who claimed to recover back the money which he had paid to the defendant had had the use of a quantity of furniture for some months. He could not give back this benefit or replace the defendant in the position in which he was before the contract. The object of the statute would seem to have been to restore the law for the protection of infants upon which judicial decisions were considered to have imposed qualifications. The legislature never intended in making provisions for this purpose to sanction a cruel injustice. The defendant therefore could not be called upon to repay the money paid to him by the plaintiff, and the decision appealed against is right.

BOWEN, L.J.,concurred.

Solicitor for the plaintiff: A. P. Jackson.

Solicitor for the defendant: A. W. Stone, Woolwich.

H. D. W.