Back
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. COSTA
NLR24V281
Present : Schneider J.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. COSTA et al,
76-C. R. Colombo, 671.
Bond by a minor along with her father as surety to go through a court at the-
Training College and serve for five years as a teacher-Is bond
valid?-Penalty-Liquidated damages.
The first defendant, who was a minor, entered into a bond with her father as
surety agreeing to pay His Majesty the King the sum of Rs. 300. The condition of
the bond was that if the first, defendant would complete the prescribed course
for the students of the Musseus Training College and immediately thereafter be a
teacher in some registered school for five years, then the obligation shall be
null and void. The first defendant presented herself for some examination, and,
on failing, abandoned her training, The Crown sued on the bond. The Commissioner
of Requests held that as the bond was not in the form prescribed in the
Education Code, the action was not maintainable.
Held, (1) That as the bond was for the benefit of the minor the contract was
binding on the minor; and that as the father joined in the bond, the contract
was binding on her.
(2) The fact that the bond was not in the form prescribed in
the Code did not affect the validity of the bond.
(3) Under our law even a penalty may be recovered if it be not
ingens or immanis.
(4) The amount stipulated even under the English law was
in the nature of liquidated damages.
THE
facts are set out in the judgment-
Brito-Muttunayagam, C.C. (for Crown), appellant.
D. B. Jayatileke, for
respondent
. November 2, 1922. SCHNEIDER J.-
In this action the plaintiff sued upon a bond entered into by him on the one
part and the first and second defendants on the other part. The bond is dated
July 24, 1921. It would appeal-that at that date the first defendant was a
minor, and second defendant, who entered into the bond as surety, is her father.
The bond stipulated that the defendants were bound in a sum of Rs. 300 to be
paid to His Majesty the King. The bond recites that on November 11, 1920, the
first defendant entered into the Musaeus Training College as a student. The
condition of the bond was that if the first defendant would complete " the
prescribed course for the students of the Musaeus Training College and
immediately thereafter be a teacher in some registered school in Ceylon
under the management of the Buddhist Theosophical Society or of any other Buddhist Society or Buddhist school for and during five consecutive years, then this obligation shall be null and void." It would appear that the first defendant presented herself for some Attorney examination in connection with her training course and failed. Costa She, thereupon, on August 8, 1921, left the Musaeus College and abandoned her training. The action is founded upon the alleged breach on her part of the condition of the bond. The defence raised to the action was that the first defendant was a minor, and that, therefore, the contract is not binding. The learned Commissioner has rightly held that this defence is not sustainable, because the bond was entered into for the benefit of the minor, the first defendant, and it seems to me it is also unsustainable for another reason, viz., that she entered into the bond with the authority of her father, who, I take it, is her guardian. But the learned Commissioner has dismissed the plaintiff's action for reasons which do not commend themselves to me, and which I am unable to uphold. He appears to have considered the Government Grant-in-aid Code, and to have come to the conclusion that the bond was not in the form prescribed by that Code. It seems quite clear to my mind that the learned Commissioner was not justified in consulting the Grand-in-aid Code in order to interpret a contract entered into by parties with all the solemnity of a bond. Parties must be held bound by the terms of the bond. It is equally clear to me that by the bond the de
