Facts: Scarborough, who was under the age of 18, lived about 12 miles away from the place where he worked. He travelled to and from work by bicycle. While still a minor, Scarborough purchased a new bicycle from Sturzaker, trading in his old one on part payment. The purchase of the new bicycle was only legally enforceable against Scarborough if a bicycle was a 'necessity'.
Issue: Given the fact that he already owned a bicycle, was a new bicycle a necessity?
Decision: In the circumstances the new bicycle was a necessity and Scarborough was therefore bound to pay for it.
Reason: Because of the distance Scarborough lived from his work, a bicycle was a necessity. If what is needed is already sufficiently supplied to the minor, there will be no necessity to acquire replacement goods. While he still had his old bicycle, therefore, a new bicycle would not have been considered a necessity. However, the court held that, because Scarborough had traded in his old bicycle before the new one was delivered, he no longer had what he needed and a new bicycle was a necessity. Note: It is obvious that the court reached this decision partly on policy grounds. To have denied the enforceability of the agreement would have left the seller in difficult circumstances.