hfuw

BURNARD V HAGGIS, (1863) 14 C.B 143 ER 360

Facts
On 1863, the plaintiff (Burnard) let out the horse for riding to the defendant (Haggis). The
defendant, an infant undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge, with rooms in rose
Cresent, went to the plaintiff’s stable and asked for a horse for riding to be delivered to green
street. Where his friend Bonner lived.
The charge was 7s. 6d. Plaintiff clearly told that the riding horse was not to be used for
jumping & larking purpose. Defender also agree the contract. But his friend Bonner didn’t
know about the contract so he mounted on the plaintiff’s Mare (Name of the horse) and the
defendant, otherwise mounted, went out riding over the fields towards Grantchester. Bonner
put the plaintiff’s mare to a wattle fence and a stake entered her, a wound of which she (mare)
subsequently died. The plaintiff was sue the defendant for death of his horse, he wants the
liability for killed his horse so he fail a against the defendant in the country court, The court
says that even though he is a minor, what he did was totally wrong, so the defendant was held
liable in this case & the plaintiff recovered £30 in the country court.

Issues
In this particular case four major issues can be drawn which are:
 Minor’s capacity to contract
 Breach of contract
 The plaintiff recovered £30 in the county court, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed.
 Deals with the liabilities of minor in tort and contract.
Arguments Advanced

Plaintiff:
The defendant was killed the horse (mare). I made a contract to the defendant that the riding
horse was only allowed to the riding purpose not for the jumping, larking purpose. The
charge was 7s and 6d. But he didn’t tell the contract about his friend Bonner which he lived
in the green street. Here the defendant asked me to he was only the person who ride the horse
not the others, but he let the horse to his friend Bonner. But the Bonner used the horse was
the jumping purpose in the field of Grantchester, so the horse(mare) was subsequently died.
The plaintiff already told that the mare was a riding horse alone, not the jumping horse. He
wants the liability of killed his mare. Both the defendant and his friend killed plaintiff’s mare.
The plaintiff wants the liability form the defendant side.
The plaintiff argument was that the minor had breached the agreement he had signed by
allowing his friend use his mare for jumping which was against the terms of arguments. So he
was liable to his killed horse and he asked the amount for losing his mare. Plaintiff lost his
riding horse and his lease charge also. He wants the amount.

Defendant:
The defendant was completed his undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge, with rooms
in rose Cresent, he was an infant, in this case how the minor can be signs the contract. The
defendant was correctly given the riding charges also. He already told that he was went to the
horse to his friend place green street. His friend Bonner didn’t know the contract between the
plaintiff & defendant. Bonner taken the horse to the field of Grantchester and he used the
horse for jumping purpose. Unfortunately the horse was passed away.
Here the Bonner didn’t know about the horse mare. So he used the horse was jumping
purpose. The defendant argue that he was a minor, he had no job, how can he pay the amount
to the plaintiff. An agreement with a minor is entirely void. Even upon attaining a majority, a
minor cannot ratify the agreement because a void agreement cannot be ratified. The Act of
ratification cannot confer validity on an act authorised by an incompetent person.
There a minor hired a mare. It was expressly agreed that the mare will be used only for
riding and not “for jumping and larking.” The mare was made to jump over a fence, she was
impaled on it and killed. It was held that the minor was liable for negligently killing the mare
as his act was totally independent of the contract made by him.
According to section 11 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 says a minor refers to someone who has
not yet attained the age of majority. In India, the age of majority is 18. However, a person
whose person or property has been assigned to a guardian by the court remains a minor until
they reach the age of 21.
Judgements

According to lord Willes J. It appears to me that the act of riding the mare into the place
where she received her death-wound was as much a trespass, notwithstanding the hiring for
another purpose, as if, without any hiring at all, the defendant had gone into a field and taken
the mare out and hunted her and killed her. It was a bare trespass, not within the object and
purpose of the hiring. It was not even an excess. It was doing an act towards the mare which
was altogether forbidden by the owner.
According to lord Byles J. says I am the same opinion. Here the mare was let for the specific
purpose for the ride along the road, and for the purpose of being ridden only by the
defendant. The defendant not only allows his friend to mount, but allows him to put the mare
to a fence for which he was told she was unfit. Quite independently, therefore, of the question
of necessaries, the defendant is clearly responsible for the wrong done.
In Lord Camoys v Scurr (1840) 9 C. & p.383; 173 E.R. 879, the defendant obtained the
plaintiff's horse the plaintiff's agent for sale for the purpose of trial. The defendant tried it and
asked a nobleman's groom to try it also. The horse ran away with the groom and was killed.
Coleridge J. said: “The defendant had this mare for the purpose of trying her and I think that
he was entitled to put a competent person on the mare to try her." Or a person appearing to be
competent? Would this apply to the trial of a car?
This case is not really as simple as it looks. It is difficult to believe that the mere permitting
the horse to be jumped could constitute a trespass, but the giving of the horse to Bonner to
ride might well be. "There are many bailments in which the bailee is entitled to make a sub-
bailment: the repairer of a motor-car for instance, can often quite reasonably send away a part
of it to another firm for repairs; a carrier of goods may need to entrust them to another carrier
for part of the journey; a hirer may himself often, quite lawfully, sub- hire the goods. It all
depends on the circumstances of the particular case, Denning L.J Edwards v Newland & Co
[1950] 2 K.B. 534 at 542.
The liability of a bailee who has deviated from the terms of his holding is absolute in the
sense that he becomes an all-risks insurer for the goods. It is not necessary that the damage be
a foreseeable consequence (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 510), just as he must if he keeps them too long
(Mitchel vs Ealing (1978) 2 All E.R. 799) of the deviation, if the goods are damaged during
the deviation, the bailee must pay (Lilley v Doubleday) in the normal case, the bailee will
have promised, as a matter of contract, to adhere to the terms of the holding. Such a promise
would not as a matter of contract, be binding if the contract were illegal but the bailee might
still be liable for deviating from the terms of his holding as a matter of tort.
1

1
Lord Camoys v Scurr, (1840) 9 C. & p.383; 173 E.R. 87
Denning L.J Edwards v Newland & Co, [1950] 2 K.B. 534 at 542.
Mitchel vs Ealing [1978] 2 All E.R. 799

Walley vs Holt, [1876], 35 L.T. 631

Legal Ratio

Minor’s capacity to contract and their liability in torts:

A minor rented a mare with the specific condition that it would only be used for riding and
not for “jumping and larking”. However, the minor forced the mare to jump over a fence,
resulting in the mare being impaled and dying.
The court held that the minor was liable for the mare’s death because his actions were in
breach of the agreement he had signed. This case established that when a tort is independent
of a contract, the mere fact that a contract is involved will not absolve the minor from his
liability. In other words, if a tort is directly connected with a contract, the minor would not be
held liable in tort as enforcing it would have the effect of suing an infant. However, in this
case, the act of jumping was outside the contract’s terms and could therefore be
independently treated as a tort.
This case illustrates how minors can be held liable for their actions in certain circumstances,
even though they generally lack the capacity to enter into contracts. It’s important to note that
this is a specific interpretation and application of law, and actual legal outcomes can vary
based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Always consult with a legal professional for
advice on specific legal matters.
This case illustrates how minors can be held liable for their actions in certain circumstances,
even though they generally lack the capacity to enter into contracts. It’s important to note that
this is a specific interpretation and application of law, and actual legal outcomes can vary
based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Some cases are similar to this case (Walley
vs Holt, 1876, 35 L.T. 631)

Legal Analysis
The case of Burnard vs Haggis (1863) is a landmark case in the context of minors' capacity to
contract and their liability in tort law. Here's a detailed legal analysis:
A minor, who was an undergraduate at Cambridge, rented a mare for a ride along the road. He
was expressly told that the mare was not fit for leaping. However, he forced the mare to jump
over a fence, resulting in the mare being impaled and dying. The court held that the defendant
should be held liable for killed the mare, even though he was a minor whatever he did was
completely wrong in tort not in the contract. In contract this case was a breach of contract but
in tort it’s a wrong one.
A tort and a contract are two distinct areas of law, each with its own set of rules and
applications. A tort is an unjustified act or omission which results in harm to another person
or property. On the other hand, a contract is an agreement between two or more parties that
can be enforced in a court of law. Here the defendant did a tortious wrong. That’s why he was
held liable to the lost.

Conclusion
In this case the plaintiff and the defendant both are made an agreement. But the agreement
was breached in contract but when it comes to tort means it was a wrong one. so the court
held that the defendant was going to held liable and he should pay £30 in the country court.
The judgements clearly told that even though he was a minor, whatever he did it was the
wrong one in tort that’s why the defendant was held liable in the tort and not in the contract.