Nash vs. Inman, 1908

• In this case, Inman, a tailor, agreed to supply Nash, a university undergraduate, with clothes for his time at university. The agreement stated that the clothes would be of a particular quality and style, but Inman failed to provide clothes that met these specifications.
• Nash refused to accept the clothes and sued Inman for breach of contract. The trial judge awarded Nash damages of £10, which was the difference between the contract price and the value of the clothes provided by Inman.
• Nash appealed the decision, arguing that he should be entitled to the full cost of the clothes that he had ordered from Inman, as this was the measure of damages for breach of contract. 
• The Court of Appeal agreed with Nash’s argument and held that he was entitled to the full cost of the clothes that he had ordered from Inman.

1. Whether the goods supplied fell into the category of necessity?
2. If no, whether the contract was enforceable at law?
3. Who has the onus to prove/disprove the necessity of goods that were supplied to Inman?

Plaintiff Argument:-

The Plaintiff's Counsel argue that the In an action to recover the price of necessaries supplied to an infant, assuming that the goods are suitable to the defendant’s station in life, the onus is not on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was not adequately supplied with goods of that description at the time of sale.

Defendant Argument:-

The Defendant's Counsel argued that, subject to his formally proving infancy, which was not admitted, there was no evidence to go to the jury, and he called the defendant’s father, who proved the date of the defendant’s birth, and then went on to state that he was satisfied that his son on going up to the university was amply supplied with proper clothes according to his position; and he gave particulars of his outfit

JUDGMENT :-

• The court held that the case of Nash vs. Inman is an important case in English contract law as it established the principle that the measure of damages for breach of contract is the amount that would put the innocent party in the same position as if the contract had been performed. 
• It also confirmed that a party who breaches a contract must pay the full cost of the goods or services that they failed to provide, rather than just the difference between the contract price and the value of the goods or services provided.
• Nash was entitled to the full cost of the clothes that he had ordered from Inman, as this was the amount that would put him in the same position as if the contract had been performed.

• The court analysis that “Necessaries means goods or services suitable to the condition in life of minor, or any other person incapable of forming contract for himself, and as to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery”. 
• This means that not only the goods need to be suitable and necessary to the condition in life of a minor (here) but also be needed by minor in actuality, i.e. he must not be already having sufficient supply of such goods. 
• The onus to prove that the thing contracted for was a necessity lies on plaintiff, however difficult it may be to prove that it was needed by minor in actuality.
• In English Law, an incompetent person is to compensate the supplier of necessities to him by paying a reasonable price for such necessities. However, if the necessities so supplied are services instead of goods, then action for recovery lies against estate of such person and not against him.