Traditionally, English and New Zealand law have been solicitous towards the interests of minors or, to give

them their former legal description, `infants'.There was never any one particular age at which for all purposes a
person reached the age of majority in the sense that before attaining that age he/she lacked legal capacity or
competency. For some purposes attainment of some particular age was sufficient: for other purposes attainment
of some other age was required. The general rule adopted by the common law courts was that a contract made
by a person who had not attained the age of majority was voidable at that person's option. `Voidable' carries
ambiguity. In one sense it presupposes`validity unless'. In that sense certain contracts were treated by the
common law courts as being valid and binding upon the minor, unless the minor repudiated the contract before
attaining the age of majority or within a reasonable time afterwards. But another meaning was available: such
contracts were not binding at all upon the minor, unless ratified by the infant on attaining the age of majority.
Independent of those two categories were contracts of service and contracts for necessaries. Given the realities
of life over many hundreds of years, it is obvious that contracts of service would be treated as exceptional.And
the sheer imperatives of living dictated that contracts for necessaries should also be treated as exceptional,
although the nature of the liability of the minor under a contract for necessaries remained an unresolved
question.