Bruce Singer, a famous billiards player, decided to make a business of teaching young hotshots the art of shooting pool. Bruce entered into a contract with a minor named Jamie Graystone. The essence of their arrangement was that Bruce would take Jamie on tour as a professional billiards player, would pay for Jamie's lodgings, and would act as his manager in exchange for reimbursement and a share of any profits earned by Jamie while on tour.

After spending much time and trouble preparing Jamie for the tour and after incurring various liabilities as a consequence of arranging several billiard matches on Jamie's behalf, Bruce and Jamie got into a dispute about the kind of billiard cues that they would use. This resulted in Jamie's decision to quit the tour before it even began, in breach of the terms of their contract. Jamie took the position that he could avoid the contract at his option because he was a minor. Bruce argued that the contract was binding on Jamie since its subject matter was instructional in nature, thereby making it a "contract for necessaries".

Is this contract binding on Jamie? Would it make a difference if Jamie entered a contract for a new stereo system with Bruce? Please explain your answer.