4.2.2 Beneficial contracts of service

People who are under the age of majority, and in particular those who are over the age of compulsory full time education (that is, those who are 16 or above), must have the possibility of being able to earn a living. Consequently the law recognises that contracts of employment, training or apprenticeship may be enforceable. The contract, taken as a whole, must not, however, be oppressive. De Francesco v Barnum, for example, concerned a girl of 14 who entered into a contract with the plaintiff as an apprentice dancer. The contract was to last for seven years. During its operation, the girl was forbidden to marry, and could not accept any professional engagements without the plaintiff’s consent, but, on the other hand, was not guaranteed work by the plaintiff. The plaintiff could decide to terminate the agreement virtually at his discretion. The Court of Appeal held that the stipulations were of an extraordinary and unusual character, which gave the plaintiff inordinate power without any corresponding obligation. The agreement was, as a whole, not beneficial, and was thus unenforceable.

The inclusion of some disadvantageous terms, however, will not necessarily be fatal. In Clements v London and NW Railway, C was employed as a porter. Under his contract he agreed to forgo his rights under the Employers’ Liability Act 1880. Instead, he agreed to join an insurance scheme to which the employer contributed. The Court of Appeal held that although the insurance scheme had some disadvantages (for example, lower rates of compensation), it also had wider coverage than the Act in terms of the types of accident included. On balance, the court was not prepared to say that the contract of employment as a whole was disadvantageous.

4.2.3 Other contracts related to work

The rules about beneficial contracts of service extend to contracts related to the way in which the minor earns a living. Thus, in Doyle v White City Stadium, a contract between a boxer and the British Boxing Board of Control, under which the boxer received a licence in return for agreeing to abide by the Board’s rules, was held to be enforceable, despite the fact that in this particular case the rules operated to the boxer’s disadvantage. This decision was relied on in Chaplin v Leslie Frewin, where the court upheld a contract relating to the production of the minor’s autobiography (he was the son of Charlie Chaplin). The contract enabled the minor to earn money, and to make a start as an author, and for that reason was to be regarded as beneficial.

Trading contracts, on the other hand, will not be enforced. In Mercantile Union Guarantee v Ball, the court refused to enforce a hire purchase contract made by a minor who ran a haulage business. The minor businessperson is therefore at a considerable disadvantage, as compared with the minor employee. Once the age of the minor is known to others with whom he or she wishes to trade, it is unlikely that any contracts will be forthcoming. The reason for this is in line with the general paternalistic approach taken in this area, in that it is felt undesirable that the minor should enter into contracts carrying the high financial risks which will often be involved in business agreements, on the other hand, it poses severe restrictions on the teenage entrepreneur who wishes to set up a business producing and dealing in, for example, computer software.