Nash v. Inman, http://www.bcli.org/pages/publications/lrcreports/reports(html)/lrc26index.html
According to Law of Contracts, in many ways the contractual capacity of a minor differs from that of an adult. An individual below 18, who is legally a minor, according to Family Law Reforms Act, 1969, cannot enter into contracts easily, because they are grouped under valid, void and voidable contracts and hence, they hold very little legal authenticity. Valid contracts cover necessities and this means, they have to pay for the necessities1 and legally liable to do so, if plaintiff could prove that goods supplied are suitable in minor's station in life and are his actual requirements2 and here, necessities3 and luxuries4 are different and the terms should not be onerous5 and if plaintiff has all these on his side, still he will get only a reasonable price and not a contractual one.
Minors are bound by beneficial contracts service, which is usually for their own benefit, mainly termed as beneficial contracts and these include education, training, apprenticeship, and a Court can decide that minor should go through these contracts, even if some of them are not totally beneficial6 for him at the time conflict. Sometimes during the course of time circumstances might prove that a minor does not particularly need those benefits any more7.