Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T22:50:02.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redefining contractual capacity? the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the incapacity defence in English contract law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Eliza Varney
Eliza Varney*
Affiliation:
School of Law, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can the incapacity defence in contract law coexist with the concept of universal legal capacity advanced by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)? In the absence of clear guidance from the CRPD on the link between legal capacity and mental capacity, and given the silence of this Convention on the concept of contractual capacity, this article stresses the need to redefine contractual capacity in a manner that responds not only to economic interests (eg upholding the security of transactions) but also to social interests (including the protection of values such as dignity). The discussion insists that incapacity and disability must never be conceptually equated and calls for a definition of contractual incapacity that moves beyond the medical condition of individuals (whether this is known by or apparent to the other contracting party) and which considers the circumstances of the transaction. These arguments are explored in the context of English contract law, focusing on the question of contractual validity when a party lacked the mental capacity to understand the transaction and the other party was unaware of the incapacity and acted in good faith.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 493 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Mike Varney, Kelvin Johnstone and the anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. Any errors and omissions are my own.

References

1. G Quinn ‘Personhood and legal capacity: perspectives on the paradigm shift of Article 12 CRPD’ (HPOD Conference, Harvard, 2010).

2. GA Res 61/611, 13 December 2006, A/61/611, 15 IHRR 255.

3. CRPD, Art 12(1).

4. Ibid, Art 12(2).

5. M Oliver The Politics of Disablement (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 1990); S Herr et al. (eds.) The Human Rights of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: Different but Equal (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003).

6. M Bach ‘The right to legal capacity under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: key concepts and directions for law reform’, Toronto, Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society (IRIS 2009), p 1; A Dhanda ‘Constructing a new human rights lexicon: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (2008) 5 Sur: Intl J Hum Rts 43, 47; A Lawson ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: new era or false dawn?’ (2007) 34 Syracuse J. Int'l L.& Com. 563, 568; A Nilsson ‘Who gets to decide? Right to legal capacity for persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities’ Issue Paper, Council of Europe, February 2012, p 8; P Weller ‘The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the social model of health: new perspectives’ (2011) 21 J. MHL 74, 77.

7. R Dinerstein, ‘Implementing legal capacity under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the difficult road from guardianship to supported decision-making’ (2012) 19 Human Rights Brief 8, 9.

8. Lawson, above n 6, 569.

9. Dinerstein, above n 7, 9.

10. O Lewis ‘Advancing legal capacity jurisprudence’ (2011) 6 EHRLR 700, 709.

11. Nilsson, above n 6, 4–6; A Kanter ‘The promise and challenge of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (2007) 34 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 287, 302.

12. Quinn, above n 1, 10.

13. CRPD, Art 12(3).

14. Dhanda, above n 6, 47.

15. CRPD, Art 1.

16. Quinn, above n 1.

17. L Kerzner ‘Paving the way to full realization of the CRPD's rights to legal capacity and supported decision-making: a Canadian perspective’, Report prepared for In from the margins: new foundations for personhood and legal capacity in the 21st century, University of British Columbia, April 2011; A Dhanda ‘Legal capacity in the disability rights convention: stranglehold of the past or lodestar for the future?’ (2007) 34 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 429.

18. P Bartlett ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and mental health law’ (2012) 75 MLR 752, 767.

19. See, for example, E Flynn ‘Mental (in)capacity or legal capacity: a human rights analysis of the proposed fusion of mental health and mental capacity law in Northern Ireland’ (2013) 64 NILQ 485; F Morrissey ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: a new approach to decision-making in mental health law’ (2012) 19 EJHL 423; S Wildeman ‘Protecting rights and building capacities: challenges to global mental health policy in light of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (2013) 41 Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 48.

20. R (on the application of NM) v Islington LBC [2012] EWHC 414 (Admin).

21. Ibid, [98].

22. R (on the application of MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWHC 2213 (QB).

23. Ibid, [80]. See also Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWCA Civ 763, [30]; JH Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418.

24. AH v West London Mental Health Trust [2011] UKUT 74 (AAC).

25. Ibid, [16].

26. CRPD, Art 12(1).

27. Ibid, Art 3(a).

28. Bach, above n 6, 4–5.

29. Mental Capacity Act 2005, c. 9 [hereafter MCA].

30. Ibid, ss 2 and 3.

31. Ibid, s 7.

32. Re MM (an adult) [2007] EWHC 2003 (Fam) [79–80].

33. Aster Healthcare v Shafi [2014] EWHC 77 (QB), as confirmed in [2014] EWCA Civ 1350.

34. Ibid, [49] (per Andrews J). See Re Rhodes [1890] 44 Ch Div 94.

35. P Watts ‘Contracts made by agents on behalf of principals with latent mental incapacity: the common law position’ (2015) 74 CLJ 145.

36. G Spark Vitiation of Contracts: International Contractual Principles and English Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p 57.

37. Henry of Bracton, De Legibus Et Consuetudinibus Angliæ (The Laws and Customs of England), c. 1210–1268. Spark, above n 36, p 57.

38. Beverley's Case (1603) 4 Co. rep. 123b.

39. Watts, above n 35, 145.

40. Moulton v Camroux (1848) 2 Exch 487, [501].

41. Imperial Loan v Stone [1892] 1 QB 599.

42. Ibid, [601].

43. Watts, above n 35, p 145.

44. Archer v Cutler [1980] 1 NZLR 386.

45. Ibid, [401].

46. Hart v O'Connor [1985] AC 1000.

47. Ibid, [1027].

48. Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18.

49. Ibid, [25].

50. J Chitty et al. (eds), Chitty on Contracts (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 32nd edn, 2015); E Peel Treitel on the Law of Contract (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 14th edn, 2015).

51. For a more detailed discussion of the CRPD, see OM Arnardóttir and G Quinn (eds) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian perspectives (Leiden: Brill, 2009); E Flynn, From Rhetoric to Action: Implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2011). On Article 12 CRPD, see Bartlett, above n 18; P Gooding ‘Navigating the ‘flashing amber lights’ of the right to legal capacity in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: responding to major concerns’ (2015) 15 HRL Rev. 45; A Arstein-Kerslake and E Flynn ‘The general comment on Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: a roadmap for equality before the law’ (2016) 20 Intl J Hum Rts 471.

52. Kanter, n 11 above, 288.

53. R Kayess and P French ‘Out of darkness into light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (2008) 8 HRL Rev. 1. See CRPD, Art 1.

54. Lawson, above n 6, 584. See CRPD Art 12(1).

55. D Smith ‘Who says you are disabled? The role of medical evidence in the ADA definition of disability’ (2007) 82 Tul. L. Rev. 1, 71.

56. CRPD, Art 1.

57. Ibid, Art 3(d).

58. T Melish ‘The UN disability convention: historic process, strong prospects and why the US should ratify’ (2007) 14 Human Rights Brief 1, 7.

59. Kayess and French, above n 53, 3.

60. S Fraser Butlin ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: does the Equality Act 2010 measure up to UK international commitments?’ (2011) 40 ILJ 428.

61. CRPD, para (e), Preamble.

62. Lawson, above n 6, 572.

63. H Bielefeldt ‘New inspiration for the human rights debate: the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities’ (2007) 52 NQHR 397, 398.

64. H Hanish ‘Recognising disability’, in J Bickenbach et al. (eds.) Disability and the Good Human Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p 124. See C Taylor Philosophical Arguments (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), p 226.

65. Ibid.

66. S Fredman ‘Equality: a new generation?’ (2001) 30 ILJ 145, 155.

67. Ibid, 154.

68. ComRPD, General Comment No. 1: Article 12 (Equal Recognition before the Law), 19 May 2014, UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/1, para 13.

69. For similar arguments regarding the concepts of dignity, equality and liberty, see S Baer ‘Dignity, liberty, equality: a fundamental rights triangle of constitutionalism’ (2009) 59 U.Toronto L.J. 417.

70. D Réaume ‘Discrimination and dignity’ (2003) 63 Louisiana L.Rev, 1, 51.

71. CRPD, Art 12(1).

72. Ibid. Art 12(2). See Dhanda, above n 17, 457; Dhanda, above n 6, 46–48.

73. Nilsson, above n 6, 14.

74. Lawson, above n 6, 595.

75. CRPD, Arts 1 and 12(1).

76. Ibid, Art 12(2) and (3).

77. Melish, above n 58, 9.

78. CRPD, Art 12(5).

79. Ibid, Art 12(3).

80. Ibid, Art 12(4).

81. Dinerstein, above n 7, 8. See also J Dawson ‘A realistic approach to assessing mental health laws' compliance with the UNCRPD’ (2015) 40 Int’l J.L.& Psychiatry 70.

82. ComRPD, General Comment No. 1, para 13.

83. Ibid. See Arstein-Kerslake and Flynn, above n 51, 474.

84. Bach, above n 6, 5.

85. Flynn, above n 19, 497; E Flynn and A Arstein-Kerslake ‘Legislating personhood: realising the right to support in exercising legal capacity’ (2014) 10 Int. J.L.C. 81, 87.

86. CRPD, Arts 2, 5 and 12. See W Martin et al. ‘Achieving CRPD compliance. Is the Mental Capacity Act of England and Wales compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? If not, what next? An Essex autonomy project position paper’, Report submitted to the UK Ministry of Justice, 22 September 2014, 16.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid, 7.

89. Ibid. Martin et al. support this conclusion with reference to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 20: ‘Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (Art 2(2) ICESCR’, (2009), E/C.12/GC/20, para 13; UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18: ‘Non-discrimination’ (1989), HRI/GsEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), para 13.

90. Ibid, 7.

91. CRPD, Art 3(a).

92. Ibid, Art 11.

93. Ibid, Art 16. See Martin et al., above n 86, 30.

94. Dawson, above n 81, 71.

95. Martin et al., above n 86, 9.

96. Ibid. See also J Craigie ‘Against a singular understanding of legal capacity: criminal responsibility and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (2015) 40 Int J Law Psychiatry 6, 8.

97. CRPD, Art 12(3). E Flynn and A Arstein-Kerslake ‘The support model of legal capacity: fact, fiction, or fantasy?’ (2014) 32 Berk J Intl L 124, 131.

98. P. Gooding et al. ‘Assistive technology as support for the exercise of legal capacity’ (2015) 29 Int'l Rev.L.Computers & Tech. 245, 251; T Minkowitz ‘Abolishing mental health laws to comply with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ in B McSherry and P Weller, Rethinking Rights-based Mental Health Laws (Oxford: Hart, 2010), p 160.

99. L Series ‘Relationships, autonomy and legal capacity: mental capacity and support paradigms’ (2015) 40 Int’l J.L.& Psychiatry 80, 85.

100. ComRPD, General Comment No. 1, para 17. See W Martin et al. ‘Three jurisdictions report: towards compliance with CRPD Art. 12 in capacity/incapacity legislation across the UK, An Essex autonomy project position paper’, 6 June 2016, 52; Arstein-Kerslake and Flynn, above n 51, 476; Flynn, above n 19, 498; Gooding, above n 51, 46.

101. A Arstein-Kerslake ‘An empowering dependency: exploring support for the exercise of legal capacity’ (2016) 18 Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 77, 81.

102. CRPD, Art 12(4); ComRPD, General Comment No. 1, para 20. See Martin et al., above n 86, 38.

103. Series, above n 99, 87.

104. ComRPD, General Comment No. 1.

105. Ibid, para 15.

106. Ibid, para 29(i).

107. Ibid, para 14.

108. Ibid. See Martin et al., above n 86, 24; P Gooding and C O'Mahony ‘Laws on unfitness to stand trial and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: comparing reform in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Australia’ (2016) 44 IJLCJ 122, 136; Flynn, above n 19, 486.

109. S Callaghan and C Ryan ‘An evolving revolution: evaluating Australia's compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in mental health law’ (2016) 39 U.N.S.Wales L.J. 596, 604.

110. CRPD, Art 12(2). See Dawson, above n 81, 73.

111. Dawson, above n 81, 71–73.

112. T Minkowitz ‘Rethinking criminal responsibility from a critical disability perspective: the abolition of insanity/incapacity acquittals and unfitness to plead, and beyond’ (2014) 23 Griffith L.Rev. 434, 455.

113. Ibid. See also K Booth Glen ‘Changing paradigms: mental capacity, legal capacity, guardianship, and beyond’ (2012) 44 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 93, 98.

114. CRPD, Art 3(a) and para (n) Preamble.

115. Ibid, Art 3(d).

116. Ibid, Arts 1 and 3(a).

117. Ibid, Art 12(3). See Dhanda, above n 6, 50.

118. Lewis, above n 10, 704.

119. D MacKay ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities’ (2007) 34 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 323, 330. See CRPD, para (c), Preamble.

120. See T Marshall Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950).

121. A Lorenzetti Il Buon Governo, 1338 painting, Palazzo Pubblico di Siena.

122. G Teubner ‘Contracting worlds: the many autonomies of private law’ (2000) 9 Social and Legal Studies 399, 400–402.

123. Ibid.

124. Ibid.

125. Ibid.

126. Series, above n 99.

127. MCA 2005, ss 2, 3 and 7.

128. Re MM, above n 32.

129. Re Rhodes, above n 34; Aster Healthcare v Shafi, above n 33.

130. MCA 2005, s 15.

131. Ibid, s 7.

132. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Chitty, above n 50, 9–099 (property and affairs under the control of the court) and 9–096 (liability for necessaries). For a more detailed discussion of the concept of capacity under the MCA 2005, see J Herring and J Wall ‘Autonomy, capacity and vulnerable adults: filling the gaps in the Mental Capacity Act’ (2015) 35 LS 698.

133. Chitty, above n 50, 9–001.

134. MCA 2005, ss 2 and 3.

135. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41. See Peel, above n 50, 12–054.

136. MCA 2005, s 7.

137. MCA 2005, s 2(1). See also MCA 2005, s 3(1).

138. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41, [601].

139. Manches v Trimborn (1946) 115 LJKB 305; Re Beany [1978] 1 WLR 770; Masterman-Lister v Jewell [2002] EWCA Civ 1889.

140. Peel, above n 50, 12–053.

141. Re MM, above n 32, per Munby J.

142. See the Lord Chancellor's Foreword to the MCA Code of Practice, 2007 (regarding the MCA 2005); See Barclays Bank v Schwartz, The Times, August 2, 1995 (regarding the common law).

143. Watts, above n 35.

144. Bracton, above n 37. See Spark, above n 36, 57.

145. Spark, above n 36, 58.

146. Watts, above n 35, 145; Spark, above n 36, 58; See Archer v Cutler, above n 44, [396].

147. W Cook ‘Mental Deficiency and the English Law of Contract’ (1921) 21 Colum.L.Rev. 424.

148. Chief Justice Coke (1552–1634). See Cook, above n 147, 429.

149. Beverley's Case, above n 38, [1603].

150. Cook, above n 147, 429.

151. Ibid.

152. See Archer v Cutler, above n 44, [396].

153. Cook, above n 147, 431, quoting J Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co, 13th edn, 1886), p 239.

154. Moulton v Camroux, above n 40.

155. Ibid, 501.

156. Ibid, 503.

157. Moulton v Camroux (1849) 4 Exch 17, [17–19]. See H Goudy, 'Contracts by lunatics' (1901) 17 LQR 147, 152.

158. See discussion in Archer v Cutler, above n 44, [400] and Hart v O'Connor, above n 46, [1020].

159. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41.

160. Ibid, [602].

161. See discussion in Archer v Cutler, above n 44, [398–400] and Hart v O'Connor, above n 46, [1021].

162. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41, [601].

163. Ibid.

164. Ibid.

165. York Glass v Jubb (1925) 134 LT 36.

166. Ibid.

167. Hart v O'Connor, above n 46.

168. Archer v Cutler, above n 44.

169. Ibid, 401. See discussion in Hart v O'Connor, above n 46.

170. Hart v O'Connor, above n 46, [1027].

171. Ibid.

172. Peel, above n 50, 12–052.

173. Watts, above n 35, 145.

174. J Smits Contract Law: A Comparative Introduction (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2014), 99.

175. Goudy, above n 157, p 150.

176. Ibid.

177. Ibid.

178. Ibid.

179. Cook, above n 147, 438.

180. R Brucken et al. ‘Mental illness and the law of contracts’ (1959) 57 Mich.L.Rev. 1020, 1025.

181. Barclays Bank v Schwartz, The Times, 2 August 1995.

182. Ibid. See Chitty, above n 50, 9–001.

183. Brucken, above n 180, 1029.

184. Goudy, above n 157, 150.

185. Ibid.

186. Chitty, above n 50, 1–014.

187. Goudy, above n 157, 150.

188. Ibid, 153.

189. Proform Sports Management v Proactive Sports Management [2006] EWHC 2903 (Ch). See Chitty, above n 50, 9–007.

190. Goudy, above n 157, p 153.

191. Loudon v Elder's CB (1923) SLT 226. See Smits, above n 174, 98.

192. A. Hudson ‘Mental incapacity revisited’ (1986) Conv. 178, p 184.

193. Ibid.

194. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41, 601.

195. Hudson, above n 192, 184.

196. Ibid.

197. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44; Peel, above n 50, 10–016; Chitty, above n 50, 8–060.

198. R Bigwood, Exploitative Contracts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p 466.

199. J Devenney and A Chandler ‘Unconscionability and the taxonomy of undue influence’ (2007) JBL 541. See Fry v Lane (1888) 40 ChD 312; Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255; Alec Lobb v Total Oil [1985] 1 WLR 173.

200. Smits, above n 174, 99.

201. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41, [601]. See Hudson, above n 192, 178.

202. Archer v Cutler, above n 44, [401].

203. Ibid, [402].

204. Hudson, above n 192, 178.

205. Hart v O'Connor, above n 46, [1018]. See Hudson, above n 192, 178.

206. Ibid, [1027].

207. Hudson, above n 192, 185.

208. S Smith ‘In defence of substantive fairness’ (1996) 112 LQR 138; S Thal ‘The inequality of bargaining power doctrine: the problem of defining contractual unfairness’ (1988) 8 OJLS 17.

209. D Tiplady ‘The judicial control of contractual unfairness’ (1983) 46 MLR 601, 618.

210. Ibid.

211. Thal, above n 208, p 21.

212. Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] QB 326.

213. Ibid, [336–337].

214. National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985] AC 686, [707].

215. Thal, above n 208, 19–21.

216. P Atiyah ‘Contract and fair exchange’ (1985) 35 UTLJ 1, p 9.

217. M Chen-Wishart ‘The O’Brien principle and substantive unfairness' (1997) 56 CLJ 60, 64.

218. J Morgan Great Debates in Contract Law (London: Palgrave, 2nd edn, 2015), p 213.

219. Ibid, p 214.

220. Dunhill v Burgin, above n 48.

221. Ibid, [25].

222. Ibid.

223. Ibid.

224. Spark, above n 36, 58.

225. Peel, above n 50, 12–055; Chitty, above n 50, 9–080.

226. Chitty, above n 50, 9–088.

227. Ibid, 9–081.

228. Ibid.

229. York Glass v Jubb, above n 165, [292]. See Chitty, above n 50, 9–082.

230. Chitty, above n 50, 9–082. See Hart v O'Connor, above n 46, [1024–1026].

231. Ibid, 9–079.

232. Civil Procedure Rules 1998/3132, Rule 21.10(1). See Chitty, above n 50, 9–084.

233. Chitty, above n 50, 9–084.

234. Josife v Summertrot Holdings [2014] EWHC 996 (Ch).

235. Ibid, [19–20], per Norris J. See Chitty, above n 50, 9–078, footnote 359.

236. Chitty, above n 50, 9–079.

237. Ibid.

238. Watts, above n 35, 215.

239. Barclays Bank v O'Brien [1994] 1 A.C. 180. See Chitty, above n 50, 9–079.

240. Chitty, above n 50, 9–079.

241. Ibid, footnote 361. See Hardman v Falk [1955] BCJ No. 199.

242. Bank of Nova Scotia v Kelly (1973), 5 Nfld. & PEIR 1, 9. See Re Sullivan (2000) PESCTD 8, 19; Pirie Estate v Bank of Nova Scotia (2015) NBBR 4, 13.

243. Hardman v Falk, above n 241, [16].

244. Atiyah, above n 216, 6; Morgan, above n 218, 212–214.

245. Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1989] QB 433.

246. Ibid, [439].

247. Bigwood, above n 198, p 269; Morgan, above n 218, 214.

248. Printing and Numerical Registering Company v Sampson (1874–75) LR 19 Eq 462.

249. Ibid, 465. See P Davies JC Smith's The Law of Contract (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p 5.

250. D Kimel From Promise to Contract: Towards a Liberal Theory of Contract (Oxford: Hart 2005), p 117.

251. P Atiyah An Introduction to the Law of Contract (Oxford: Clarendon, 5th edn, 1995), p 8.

252. Kimel, above n 250, p 119.

253. Atiyah, above n 251, p 35. See also M Green ‘Proof of mental incompetency and the unexpressed major premise’ (1944) 53 Yale L.J. 271, 304–305.

254. Chitty, above n 50, 9–087.

255. Morgan, above n 218, 215.

256. Ibid; F Buckley Just Exchange: A Theory of Contract (London: Routledge, 2005), p 145.

257. Atiyah, above n 216, p 35.

258. M Chen-Wishart ‘Undue influence: beyond impaired consent and wrongdoing towards a relational analysis’ in A Burrows and A Rodger (eds.) Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Morgan, above n 218, p 208.

259. S Shiffrin ‘Paternalism, unconscionability doctrine and accommodation’ 29 Phil.& Pub.Aff. 205, 227–228; Morgan, above n 218, p 208.

260. E McKendrick Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 7th edn, 2016).

261. Ibid.

262. Alzheimer's Society, Dementia UK: Update, 2014; Hudson, above n 194, 181.

263. Hudson, above n 194, p 181.

264. Ibid.

265. H Collins ‘The impact of human rights law on contract law in Europe’ Cambridge Legal Studies Research Paper 13/2011.

266. Ibid, 3.

267. Ibid, 4.

268. Ibid.

269. Brucken, above n 180, 1025.

270. Goudy, above n 157, 150.

271. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41, [601].

272. Archer v Cutler, above n 44, [401].

273. See Hart v O'Connor, above n 46.

274. Dunhill v Burgin, above n 48, [25].

275. Chitty, above n 50, 9–088.

276. Warrington LJ in York Glass v Jubb, above n 165, [292].

277. See CRPD, Art 12(3) CRPD; ComRPD, General Comment No. 1, para 16. See, for example, the reference to support agreements in Arstein-Kerslake and Flynn, above n 51, 481; L Salzman ‘Guardianship for persons with mental illness: a legal and appropriate alternative?’ (2011) 4 SLU Journal of Health Law & Policy 279, 307–310.

278. For a discussion of the complexity of agency agreements, see G McMeel ‘Philosophical foundations of the law of agency’ (2000) 116 LQR 387.

279. This discussion refers only to the common law framework and makes no reference to powers of attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (c 27) or lasting powers of attorney under the MCA 2005. For a discussion of these issues, see Peel, above n 50, 16–113, 16–114; Chitty, above n 50, 9–102, 9–103, 31–105, 31–168, 31–172.

280. Watts, above n 35, p 140.

281. Drew v Nunn (1879) 4 QBD 661.

282. Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 KB 215.

283. See also Daily Telegraph v McLaughain [1904] AC 776 (Privy Council); Gibbons v Wright 91 CLR 423 (High Court, Australia). See the reference to Yonge v Toynbee, above n 282 in Dunhill v Burgin, above n 48 [31]; See discussion in Chitty, above n 50, 31–038; P MacDonald Eggers Vitiation of Contractual Consent (Abingdon: Informa Law, Routledge 2016), p 131.

284. See F Reynolds and B Davenport Bowstead on Agency (London: Sweet & Maxwell 13th edn, 1968), p 14. See discussion in Watts, above n 35, p 153.

285. A Hudson ‘Agency and Insanity’ (1959) 37 Can. Bar Rev. 497, 498.

286. Drew v Nunn, above n 281.

287. Yonge v Toynbee, above n 282; Collen v Wright 119 E.R. 1259.

288. P Watts Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 20th edn, 2014), 2–009.

289. Drew v Nunn, above n 281.

290. Yonge v Toynbee, above n 282.

291. P Higgins ‘The effect of insanity on agency transactions’ (1961) 1 UTasLawRw 5, p 569.

292. Ibid; Watts, above n 288, 10–020; Watts, above n 35, 141.

293. Dunhill v Burgin, above n 48 [31] (per Lady Hale).

294. Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 18 [36] (per Richards LJ) [hereafter Blankley]; Chitty, above n 50, 31–038.

295. Dunhill v Burgin, above n 48, [31].

296. Blankley, above n 294, [37].

297. Ibid [36]; Watts, above n 288, 10–020; Watts, above n 35, 148; Higgins, above n 291, 579.

298. Hudson, above n 285, 503.

299. CRPD, Arts 1 and 12(1).

300. Ibid.

301. Melish, above n 58, p 9.

302. Quinn, above n 1.

303. Bartlett, above n 18, p 767.

304. Australian Law Reform Commission Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws, Report 124, November 2014, 11.10.

305. Bach, above n 6, 4–5.

306. Martin et al., above n 100, 7.

307. Morgan, above n 218, 215; Buckley, above n 256, 145.

308. Chen-Wishart, above n 258; Morgan, above n 220, 208.

309. Alzheimer's Society, above n 262; Hudson, above n 194, 181.

310. Imperial Loan v Stone, above n 41, [601].

311. Dunhill v Burgin, above n 48, [25]. See Chitty, above n 50, 9–075, footnote 336.

312. P Birks Restitution: The Future (Sydney: Federation Press, 1995), p 52.