STUDENT LOAN KILLER - 1874 - 2011

Re: STUDENT LOAN KILLER - 1874 - 2011

Postby treeman » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:59 pm

Necessaries. Things indespensable or things proper and useful, for the sustenance of human life. This is a relative term, and it's meaning will contract or expand according to the situation and social condition of the person referred to. In reference to the contracts of infants, this term is not used in it's strictest sense, nor limited to that which is required to sustain life, those things which are proper and suitable to each indivdual, according to his circumstances and condition in life, are necessaries, if not supplied from some other source.

:grin:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: STUDENT LOAN KILLER - 1874 - 2011

Postby musashi » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:15 pm

Cheers treeman.

Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: STUDENT LOAN KILLER - 1874 - 2011

Postby musashi » Thu May 09, 2013 10:27 pm

“Necessaries” were defined in Ryder v Wombwell. There are a goodly number of cases regarding this matter. Plenty to read, and get the flavour of the subtlety of argument and how it was handled.

Education can, in certain circumstances, be regarded as necessaries. It might depend on the particular class of person.

In one case an “infant” need not pay for expensive jewellery because they were not considered necessaries. They were mere affectations beyond what one might expect of his class.

In another, an “infant” was obliged to pay for gold jewellery because, according to his station in life, they were regarded as necessaries. One of his class would be expected to sport gold.

The son of a lord, then, might be regarded as necessarily requiring an education beyond the basic state currriculum. He will inherit an estate and will need certain higher skills to maintain it. Higher education then, would be necessary. A suit of clothes for every occasion would be regarded as necessaries, and the "infant" would be liable on the bill.

The son of a stallholder in the market, whose class would not require education beyond the standard, might not find his higher education being regarded as a a necessary. The purchase of a major general's range of uniforms could not be regarded as a necessary to the stallholder's son, for example.
They would be if the "infant" belonged to that class of gentlemen who are routinely expected to serve Her Majesty and do well.

Such niceties of argument and definition are what control the result of a question of whether the goods, or moneys, were necessaries.

What we need is a student to road test the question. If it works then all students might benefit. If it doesn't work, well, what's been lost? We just eliminated yet another non starter.

Musashi
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm


Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron