Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington
Open-knowledge reference entry
Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington [1989] 3 NZLR 122 is a case involving the enforceability of a debt incurred by a 17-year-old minor.
Background
Morrow & Benjamin Ltd, a stockbroker, opened up an account for the then 15-year-old Whittington to purchase shares during the stock market boom on the mid-1980s.
While initially his credit limit was set at $3,000, it was later increased to $12,000. That being said, the now 17-year-old ignored this credit limit and the stockbroker allowed him to purchase shares worth $36,000 on the eve of the 1987 share-market crash, which were a few months later only worth $4,000.
The plaintiff then wanted him to pay his credit account of $30,250, however Whittington had no means to pay the debt.
Held
While the defendant was sufficiently close to being 18 for the court to exercise its discretion to rule that the minor be liable for this debt, due to the fact that the plaintiff ignored its own credit control procedures, that it viewed the defendant at the time as being "casual and arrogant", and that the purchases were highly speculative in nature, the court held that the account was unreasonable, and so refused to make an order under section 6 of the Minors Contract Act for the debt to be repaid.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Morrow, Benjamin and Whittington, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 8, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q17054259. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1989 and 1987.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington primary sources, Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington archive and Morrow research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Morrow & Benjamin Ltd v Whittington” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.