1.

a) Privity of contract

Is the common law doctrine which empires that it is only the parties to the contract who acquire
rights and obligation under it, therefore a stranger or third party is not obliged to obey to fulfill
the terms to contract in which he is not a party. This means it is only the party to the contract
who may sue or sued under contract 1. Or Privity Of Contract is a major and significant doctrine
in law of contract which must be observed by the contracting parties .The doctrine of Privity of
contract means that only those involved in striking a bargain would have standing to enforce it. 2
This notion is stated in the case of Tanzania Sugar Producer vs Ministry Of Finance 3, The Court
held since that since the case was based on scale agreement which the plaintiff was not a party ,
he was stranger such that he had no capacity to sue any of the defendants on the agreement .The
plaintiff could have a claim but that claim could not be based on the contract not a party .In
other words ,contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising out of it on any person
except parties to it . Also, it was firmly established in the 19th century, particularly through the
case of Tweddle v. Atkinson4, where the court held that a third party could not enforce a
contract even if the contract was made for their benefit. This principle was further reinforced in
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. Selfridge & Co Ltd 5 , where the House of Lords ruled that
only a party to a contract can sue for its breach . also in the case of Scruttons Ltd vs Midland
Silicones Ltd 6 The court held that the clause could not be relied upon the plaintiffs as the United
States Carriage Of Goods by Sea Act 1936 did not apply to the stevedores were not a party to the
contract ,by either express or implied terms between the parties. The following are the key
principles of Privity of contract as follows;

Only parties can enforce the contract, The doctrine states that only those who are parties to a
contract (i.e., those who have provided consideration) have the right to enforce it. This means
that third parties, even if they are beneficiaries of the contract, cannot sue to enforce its terms 7.

1
Elliott .C and Quinn. F,(2005) Contract Law, 7th Edition Pearson Education Limited. ISBN 1-4058-0710-5,
England
2
Hussain .M.S and Magee.M.A(2013)General Principles Of Law of Contract In Tanzania ,Law Africa Publishing
(T)Ltd,Tanzania.
3
Case NO.85 of 2003 High Court (unreported)
4
(1861)1 B & S 393
5
[1915] AC 847
6
[1962]AC446
7
P.S. Atiyah, An Introduction to the Law of Contract 265 (3d ed 1981)
No obligations on third parties, Similarly, a third party cannot be held liable under a contract to
which they are not a party. For example, if A and B enter into a contract that affects C, C cannot
be sued for breaching the contract because they are not a party to it8.

Consideration must move from the promisee, Under the doctrine, consideration (something of
value exchanged between the parties) must move from the promisee (the party to whom the
promise is made). This means that a third party who has not provided consideration cannot
enforce the contract9.

Therefore, under common law, privity of contract is connected with consideration, where as
consideration can be finished by the promisee only. The Law of Contract Act 10, does not Cleary
provide for doctrine of privity of contract, therefore in that case since the law is silence, common
law may be applicable in this case. Now the position in Tanzania as referees the consideration
that the third party may fluffily the consideration but does not make him/her to a parties of
contract11.

b) Exceptions to the privity of contract

The doctrine of privity of contract, which states that only parties to a contract can enforce its
terms, has several exceptions. These exceptions allow third parties to enforce or benefit from a
contract in specific circumstances. Below are five key exceptions to the privity rule, supported
by legal authorities and case law as follow;

Insurance Contracts, third party beneficiaries (e.g., family members or dependents) may enforce
insurance policies taken out for their benefit, even though they are not parties to the contract. In
case of Beswick v. Beswick12, the court allowed a third-party beneficiary to enforce a contract
for their benefit. Although this case is often cited in the context of privity, it also applies to
insurance contracts. Example under the Road Traffic Act 1988 section ,148(7) 13,the person
issuing a policy of insurance against death or bodily injury to third parties in accordance with the
requirements of the Act is made liable to indemnify not only the persons taking out the
8
G.H. Treitel, The Law of Contract 538 (8th ed. 1991)
9
P.S. Atiyah, An Introduction to the Law of Contract 265 (3d ed 1981)
10
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
11
Nditi
12
(1968) AC 58[1957]ALL ER 1
13
Road Traffic Act 1988.
policy ,but the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability
which the policy purports to cover. Things Also proved in the case of Sat Dev Sharma Seema
Driving School v The Home Insurance Company of New york 14, the court held that the policy on
its true construction was a policy taken out by the plaintiff as employer for the benefit of the
named employees, and the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the subject matter of the policy.
There was no constructive or implied trust under with the plaintiff was trustee on behalf of the
employees.

Trusts, is an arrangement where one party (the trustee) holds property or rights for the benefit of
another (the beneficiary). If a contract is made for the benefit of a third party who is a
beneficiary under a trust, the third party can enforce the contract through the trustee. In the case
Gregory v. Williams15, the court recognized that a third-party beneficiary under a trust could
enforce a contract made for their benefit. The trustee acts as the legal owner of the rights, but the
beneficiary has equitable rights to enforce the contract. Also proved in the case of M.C. Chacko
v State of Travancore16, it is held that in order that a charge may be created there must be
evidence of intention disclosed by the deed that specified property or fund belonging to a person
was intended to be made liable to satisfy the deed. In the present case, recitals in the deed did not
provide evidence of the donor’s intention to create charge in favor of the creditor Bank.

Agency, under section 134 of the Law of Contract Act 17, it provides the agency. An agent acts on
behalf of a principal. If an agent enters into a contract with a third party on behalf of the
principal, the principal (who is not directly a party to the contract) can enforce the contract or be
held liable under it. Also proved in the case of Freeman & Lockyer v. Buckhurst Park Properties
(Mangal) Ltd18, the court held that a principal could be bound by a contract entered into by an
agent acting within their authority. Example If an estate agent signs a contract on behalf of a
property owner, the owner (principal) can enforce the contract even though they were not
directly involved in its formation.

14
[1966] 1 EA 8(5CK)
15
(1973) 303 N.E.2d 621(Ill. App. Ct. 1973
16
[1970] 5CR (1)658,1970 AIR 500
17
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
18
(1964) 2QB 480
Collateral contracts, is a separate agreement that exists alongside the main contract. If a third
party has a collateral contract with one of the parties to the main contract, they may enforce the
collateral contract even though they are not a party to the main contract. Proved in the case of
Shanklin Pier Ltd v. Detel Products Ltd 19, the court recognized that a collateral contract could
exist between a third party and one of the parties to the main contract. The third party was
allowed to enforce the collateral contract. Example If A contracts with B to supply materials, and
B makes a separate promise to C (a third party) about the quality of the materials, C can enforce
the collateral contract.

Restrictive covenants, In property law, restrictive covenants are obligations attached to land that
bind subsequent owners, even if they were not parties to the original contract. These covenants
are enforceable by and against third parties who acquire the land. Proved in the case of Tulk v.
Moxhay20, the court held that a restrictive covenant could bind a third party who purchased land
with notice of the covenant. This case established the principle that restrictive covenants "run
with the land." Example If A sells land to B with a covenant that the land will not be used for
commercial purposes, and B later sells the land to C, C will be bound by the covenant if they had
notice of it.

c) 5 cases in relation to privity of contract.

The doctrine of privity of contract has been shaped and refined through numerous landmark
cases. Below is a detailed discussion of five key cases that have significantly influenced the
development and application of the privity rule as follow;

Tweddle v. Atkinson21

Facts

In this case, the fathers of a married couple (Tweddle and Guy) entered into a contract stating
that each would pay a sum of money to the couple. After the death of Tweddle's father, Guy
failed to pay the promised amount, and Tweddle sued to enforce the contract.

Issue
19
(1951) 2 KB 854
20
(1848) 2 Ph 774
21
(1861)1 B & S 393
The issue was whether Tweddle, who was not a party to the contract, could enforce its terms.

Holding

The court held that Tweddle could not enforce the contract because he was not a party to it and
had not provided consideration. This case established the principle that only parties to a contract
can enforce its terms.

Significance

This case is a foundational authority for the doctrine of privity of contract, emphasizing the
requirement of consideration and the exclusion of third-party rights.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. Selfridge & Co Ltd22

Facts

Dunlop sold tires to a distributor, Dew & Co, with a condition that they would not sell the tires
below a specified price. Dew & Co sold the tires to Selfridge, who agreed to the same condition
but later sold the tires below the agreed price. Dunlop sued Selfridge for breach of contract.

Issue

The issue was whether Dunlop, who was not a party to the contract between Dew & Co and
Selfridge, could enforce the price-fixing agreement.

Holding

The House of Lords held that Dunlop could not enforce the contract because it was not a party to
the agreement between Dew & Co and Selfridge. The court reaffirmed the privity rule, stating
that only parties to a contract can enforce its terms.

Significance

This case reinforced the privity rule and highlighted its limitations in commercial transactions
involving third parties.

22
[1915] AC 847
Beswick v. Beswick23

Facts

Peter Beswick transferred his business to his nephew in exchange for a promise that the nephew
would pay an annuity to Peter's wife (Mrs. Beswick) after Peter's death. After Peter died, the
nephew refused to pay the annuity, and Mrs. Beswick sued to enforce the contract.

Issue

The issue was whether Mrs. Beswick, as a third-party beneficiary, could enforce the contract.

Holding

The House of Lords held that Mrs. Beswick could enforce the contract in her capacity as the
administratrix of Peter's estate (i.e., as a party to the contract). However, the court also noted
that, as a third party, she could not have enforced the contract in her personal capacity.

Significance

This case highlighted the limitations of the privity rule and led to calls for reform, ultimately
contributing to the enactment of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in the UK.

Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v. Cleaves & Co Ltd24

Facts

Nisshin Shipping entered into a charterparty agreement with Cleaves & Co, which included a
clause requiring the payment of commission to Cleaves. Cleaves assigned the right to receive the
commission to a third party, who sought to enforce the clause.

Issue

The issue was whether the third party could enforce the commission clause under the Contracts
(Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

Holding
23
(1968) AC 58[1957]ALL ER 1
24
[2003] EWHC 2602
The court held that the third party could enforce the clause because the contract expressly
provided for the benefit of the third party, satisfying the requirements of the Act.

Significance

This case is a key authority on the application of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act
1999 which allows third parties to enforce contractual terms in certain circumstances.

Tulk v. Moxhay25

Facts

Tulk sold a piece of land to a buyer, who covenanted (promised) to maintain the land as a garden
square. The land was later sold to Moxhay, who attempted to build on the land, violating the
covenant.

Issue

The issue was whether Tulk could enforce the covenant against Moxhay, who was not a party to
the original contract.

Holding

The court held that Tulk could enforce the covenant against Moxhay because the covenant was
attached to the land and bound subsequent owners. This case established the principle that
restrictive covenants "run with the land."

Significance

This case is a landmark in property law and represents an exception to the privity rule, allowing
third parties to enforce covenants that affect land.

Conclusion, These cases illustrate the development and application of the privity of contract
doctrine, as well as its limitations and exceptions.

2. i) Consideration , Is a fundamental concept in contract law that refers to something of value

exchanged between the parties to a contract. It is one of the essential elements required for the

25
(1848) 2 Ph 774
formation of a legally binding contract. Consideration can take many forms, such as money,
goods, services, promises, or forbearance (refraining from doing something one has a legal right
to do)26. In the case of Currie v Misa27, provide that a valuable consideration in the sense of the
law may consist either is some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one part, or some
forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. Also
the case of Thomas v Thomas28, consideration of contract can be described as badge of
enforceability. Also section 10 and 25 of the Law of Contract Act 29 it explain the consideration.
Therefore consideration is nothing goes for nothing come from the maxim quid pro quo.

ii) Types of consideration both Tanzania and common law position.

Consideration can be classified into several types, depending on the nature of the exchange
between the parties. These types are recognized in both Tanzanian law and common law systems
as follow;

Executory consideration, refers to a promise to perform an act or provide something of value in

the future. It involves mutual promises between the parties, where both sides are obligated to
perform their respective duties at a later date. Or consist of a promise made in return for a
promise, where both promises are still to be performed such as a contract between buyer and
seller30 . example A promises to deliver goods to B in one month, and B promises to pay A upon
delivery. Both promises are executory because they are to be performed in the future. Proved in
the case of Currie v. Misa31, the court defined consideration as "some right, interest, profit, or
benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given,
suffered, or undertaken by the other.’’ Therefore in Tanzanian contract law, which is largely
based on English common law, recognizes executory consideration. The Law of Contract Act 32,
does not explicitly define consideration but follows common law principles.

26
Contract Law, Catherine Elliott and Frances Quinn, 5th Edition (2005). Pearson Education Limited. ISBN 1-4058-
0710-5
27
(1875) LR 10 EX 153
28
(1842) QB 851
29
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
30
Contract Law, Catherine Elliott and Frances Quinn, 5th Edition (2005). Pearson Education Limited. ISBN 1-4058-
0710-5
31
(1875) LR 10 EX 153
32
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
Executed consideration, refers to an act that has already been performed in exchange for a
promise. In this case, one party has already fulfilled their obligation, and the other party is now
obligated to perform their promise. Or it occurs when one of the two parties has done all that
they are required to do, leaving any outstanding liability on the other party 33. Proved in the case
of Roscorla v. Thomas34, the court held that past consideration (something done before the
promise is made) is not valid. However, executed consideration is valid because it is performed
in exchange for the promise. Example A pays B $100 in advance for a service, and B promises
to perform the service later. The payment of $100 is executed consideration because it has
already been performed. Therefore in Tanzanian law also recognizes executed consideration. For
example, if a buyer pays for goods in advance, the payment constitutes executed consideration,
and the seller is obligated to deliver the goods.

Past consideration, refers to an act or service that was performed before the promise was made.
Generally, past consideration is not valid because it lacks the element of exchange at the time of
the promise. Or cannot support a promise35. Proved in the case of Re McArdle36, the court held
that work done before a promise was made could not be valid consideration for that promise.
Example A repairs B's car without being asked. Later, B promises to pay A for the repairs. The
repair work is past consideration and is generally not enforceable. Therefore in Tanzanian law
follows the common law principle that past consideration is not valid. For example, under the
Law of Contract Act37 a promise made after an act has been performed cannot be enforced unless
there was an existing obligation or understanding at the time of the act.

Conclusion, the types of consideration executory, executed and past is recognized in both
Tanzanian law and common law systems. While the principles are largely the same, Tanzanian
law is codified under the Law of Contract Act , which incorporates common law principles.
Understanding these types of consideration is essential for determining whether a contract is
legally enforceable in both jurisdictions.

33
Contract Law, Catherine Elliott and Frances Quinn, 5th Edition (2005). Pearson Education Limited. ISBN 1-4058-
0710-5
34
(1842) 3 QB 234
35
Contract Law, Catherine Elliott and Frances Quinn, 5th Edition (2005). Pearson Education Limited. ISBN 1-4058-
0710-5
36
(1951)
37
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
iii) Exception of past consideration

The general rule in contract law is that past consideration is not valid consideration. Past
consideration refers to an act or service that was performed before the promise was made, and it
cannot be used to enforce a subsequent promise because it lacks the element of exchange at the
time of the promise. However, there are several exceptions to this rule where past consideration
may be deemed valid. Below are five key exceptions as following;

Act done at the promisor's request, If the past act or service was performed at the express or
implied request of the promisor, and there was an understanding that payment or reward would
be made, the past consideration may be valid. This proved in the case of Lampleigh v.
Brathwait38, the court held that if a past act was done at the request of the promisor and there was
an expectation of payment, the subsequent promise to pay could be enforced. This case
established the principle that past consideration is valid if it was requested by the promisor.
Example A performs a service for B at B's request. Later, B promises to pay A for the service.
The past consideration (the service) is valid because it was done at B's request.

Pre existing obligation or duty, If the past consideration was performed under a pre existing
obligation or duty, and the subsequent promise is made to recognize or reward that obligation,
the past consideration may be valid. Also proved under section 25(1)(b) of the Law of Contract
Act39, it provides that a promise to compensate a person for a past act voluntarily done. Also in
the case of Re Casey's Patents40, the court held that a promise to pay for past services performed
under a pre existing obligation could be enforceable if the promise was made to recognize the
value of those services. Example A works for B under a contract that does not specify payment
for overtime. Later, B promises to pay A for the overtime work. The past consideration (overtime
work) is valid because it was performed under a pre existing obligation.

Moral obligation, In some cases, a promise made out of a moral obligation to recognize past
services or acts may be enforceable, even if the consideration is past. This exception is more
limited and is not universally recognized. In the case of Eastwood v. Kenyon 41, the court rejected

38
(1615)
39
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
40
(1892)
41
(1840)
the idea of moral obligation as valid consideration. However, in the case of Mills v. Wyman 42, a
U.S. court recognized moral obligation as a basis for enforcing a promise in certain
circumstances. Example A saves B's life, and later, B promises to reward A. While this may not
be enforceable in many jurisdictions, some courts may recognize it as a moral obligation.

Subsequent promise to pay a debt barred by limitation, If a debt is no longer enforceable due to
the expiration of the limitation period, a subsequent promise to pay the debt may revive it, even
though the original consideration is past. Also proved under section 25(1)(c) of the Law of
Contract Act43, it proved that a promise to pay time barred debt. Proved in the case of Spencer v.
Hemmerde44, the court held that a promise to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations could
be enforceable if it was made with the intention to revive the debt. Example A owes B $1,000,
but the debt becomes unenforceable after the limitation period expires. Later, A promises to pay
the debt. The past consideration (the original debt) is valid because of the subsequent promise.

Continuing services or relationship, If the past consideration is part of a continuing relationship

or series of transactions, and the subsequent promise is made in recognition of the ongoing
relationship, the past consideration may be valid. Proved in the case of Re McArdle 45, the court
held that past consideration is not valid unless it was done at the request of the promisor.
However, in cases involving continuing relationships, courts may recognize the past
consideration as part of an ongoing exchange. Example A provides ongoing services to B
without a formal contract. Later, B promises to pay A for the past services as part of their
continuing relationship. The past consideration may be valid in this context.

Conclusion, these exceptions ensure that parties are not unfairly deprived of compensation for
acts or services performed in good faith, even if the promise to pay is made after the fact.
Tanzanian law, following common law principles, also recognizes these exceptions in
appropriate cases.

3. A proposal (also known as an offer) is a crucial element in the formation of a contract. It is an

expression of willingness to enter into a contract on specific terms, with the intention that it will

42
(1825)
43
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
44
(1922)
45
(1951)
become binding upon acceptance. This provided under section 2(1)(a)of the Law of Contract
Act46.A proposal can be made in various ways, depending on the circumstances and the parties
involved. Below are the ways in which a proposal can be made, supported by examples and legal
principles as follow;

Through conduct, An implied proposal is made through conduct or actions rather than explicit
words. The offeror's behavior indicates a willingness to enter into a contract. This proved in the
case of Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co 47, the court recognized that an offer could be
implied from the parties' conduct and correspondence. Examples, A bus driver opening the doors
of a bus implies an offer to carry passengers for the fare. A vending machine displaying goods
implies an offer to sell those goods when money is inserted.

Verbal or written, an express proposal is made explicitly, either verbally or in writing. It clearly
states the terms of the offer and the intention to be bound by those terms. This proved in the case
of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co48, the court held that a written advertisement constituted an
express offer because it clearly stated the terms and showed an intention to be bound. Examples
Verbal ,A tells B, "I will sell you my car for $10,000." Written, A sends B an email stating, "I
offer to sell you my car for $10,000."

To the public, a general proposal is made to the public at large rather than to a specific
individual. It can be accepted by anyone who fulfills the terms of the offer. This proved to the
case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 49, the court held that a general offer to the public could
be accepted by anyone who performed the required act (using the smoke ball as directed).
Examples, A reward notice: "Lost dog: $100 reward for anyone who finds and returns it.", An
advertisement: "Special offer: Buy one, get one free."

To a particular person, a specific proposal is made to a particular person or group of persons.

Only the person(s) to whom the offer is made can accept it. This proved in the case of Boulton v.
Jones50, the court held that an offer made to a specific person could not be accepted by someone

46
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
47
(1877)
48
(1893)
49
(1893)
50
(1857)
else. Examples, A tells B, "I will sell you my car for $10,000.", A company offers a job to a
specific candidate.

Cross offers, occur when two parties make identical offers to each other without knowing that
the other has made an offer. In such cases, there is no contract unless one party accepts the
other's offer. This proved to the case of Tinn v. Hoffman & Co 51, the court held that cross offers
do not constitute a contract because there is no acceptance of an offer. Example, A sends B a
letter offering to sell a car for $10,000. At the same time, B sends A a letter offering to buy the
same car for $10,000. Neither letter is an acceptance of the other.

Counter offer, a counter proposal is made when the offeree responds to an offer with new terms
or conditions. It effectively rejects the original offer and creates a new offer. This proved in the
case of Hyde v. Wrench52, the court held that a counter offer terminates the original offer and
cannot be accepted later. Example, A offers to sell B a car for $10,000. B responds, "I will buy
the car for $9,000." This is a counter offer, which terminates the original offer.

Invitation to treat, is not a proposal but an invitation for others to make a proposal. It indicates a
willingness to receive offers but does not show an intention to be bound. This proved in the case
of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists 53, the court held that the
display of goods in a shop is an invitation to treat, not an offer. The offer is made when the
customer presents the goods at the checkout. Examples, Display of goods in a shop window or
on a shelf. Advertisements (unless they show a clear intention to be bound, as in Carlill v.
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co)Auction announcements.

Tender offers, A tender is a formal proposal to supply goods or services at a specified price. It is
often used in commercial and government contracts. This proved in the case of Harvela
Investments Ltd v. Royal Trust Co of Canada 54, the court held that a tender could constitute a
binding offer if it met the specified criteria. Example, A government invites tenders for the
construction of a road. Contractors submit their proposals (tenders), and the government accepts
the most favorable one.

51
(1873)
52
(1840)
53
(1953)
54
(1986)
Conclusion, the Law of Contract Act 55, follows similar principles regarding proposals. The Act
does not explicitly define the ways in which a proposal can be made, but Tanzanian courts have
applied common law principles in cases involving offers and invitations to treat. These methods
are essential for determining whether a valid offer has been made and whether a contract can be
formed upon acceptance.

4. a) Binding contract with minors

Certain contracts with minors are considered binding and enforceable. These typically involve
contracts for necessaries or contracts that are beneficial to the minor. This proved under section
68 of the Law of Contract Act 56,which shown that minor can inter into the contract and the
contract can be binding in the following circumstances as follow;

Contracts for necessaries, are goods or services that are essential for the minor's well being and
suitable to their station in life. Examples include food, clothing, education, and medical services.
This proved in the case of Nash v. Inman 57, the court held that a minor could be bound by a
contract for necessaries, provided the goods or services were suitable to their condition in life
and actually needed by them. Example, A minor purchases a winter coat because they need it for
the cold weather. This contract is binding because the coat is a necessary.

Beneficial contracts of service, Contracts that provide a clear benefit to the minor, such as
employment, apprenticeship, or education, are binding if they are overall advantageous to the
minor. This proved in the case of Roberts v. Gray58, the court held that a contract for a minor to
receive training as a billiards player was binding because it was beneficial to the minor's career.
Example, A minor signs a contract to work as an apprentice at a mechanic shop. This contract is
binding because it provides the minor with valuable skills and experience.

b) Void Contracts with Minors

Some contracts with minors are considered void, meaning they have no legal effect from the
outset. These typically involve contracts that are not for necessaries or are detrimental to the

55
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
56
Ibid
57
(1908)
58
(1913)
minor. This provides under section 11(2) of the Law of Contract Act 59, an agreement by a person
who is not hereby declared to be competent to contract is void. As follow;

Contracts for non-necessaries, Contracts for goods or services that are not essential to the
minor's well-being or lifestyle are void. This proved to the case of Cowern v. Nield 60,the court
held that a minor could not be held liable for non-necessary goods, such as luxury items.
Example, A minor purchases a luxury watch. This contract is void because the watch is not a
necessary.

Contracts for loans, Contracts involving loans or credit agreements with minors are generally
void because they are not considered beneficial to the minor. This proved to the case of R v.
Prince 61, the court held that a minor could not be bound by a loan agreement. Example, A minor
borrows money from a lender. This contract is void because it is not for necessaries and is not
beneficial to the minor.

c) Voidable Contracts with Minor

Certain contracts with minors are voidable, meaning the minor can choose to enforce or reject
the contract upon reaching the age of majority. These contracts remain valid unless the minor
repudiates (rejects) them. As following;

Contracts for non-necessary goods or services, Contracts for goods or services that are not
necessaries but are not outright detrimental to the minor are voidable at the minor's discretion.
This proved to the case of Steinberg v. Scala (Leeds) Ltd 62, the court held that a minor could
repudiate a contract for shares in a company because it was not a necessary. A minor purchases
shares in a company. This contract is voidable, and the minor can choose to repudiate it upon
reaching adulthood.

Contracts involving property, Contracts involving the sale, lease, or purchase of property are
voidable by the minor. This proved to the case of Davies v. Beynon-Harris 63, the court held that
a minor could repudiate a lease agreement upon reaching the age of majority. Example, A minor

59
[CAP. 345. R.E. 2019]
60
(1912)
61
(1875)
62
(1923)
63
(1931)
leases an apartment. This contract is voidable, and the minor can choose to reject it upon
becoming an adult.

Partnership agreements, Contracts involving partnerships are voidable by the minor. This
proved to the case of Goode v. Harrison64, the court held that a minor could repudiate a
partnership agreement upon reaching adulthood. Example, A minor enters into a partnership
agreement to run a business. This contract is voidable, and the minor can choose to reject it later.

Conclusion, these rules ensure that minors are protected from exploitation while allowing them
to enter into contracts that are beneficial or necessary for their well being. Tanzanian law,
following common law principles, recognizes these categories of contracts with minors.

64
(1821)