Harry King is 17 years old and lives in Sydney. He recently made a contract to buy a good quality bicycle for $950.00 from a local shop owned by North Beach Cycles Pty Ltd. The bike is ready for delivery, but Harry now wants to cancel the contract. He says it was an impulsive purchase and he is thinking he would much rather put the money towards a new iPhone. Harry reads in a textbook that the general rule at common law is that contracts are not legally binding on people under the age of 18 (minors). However, Harry also reads that the Minors (Property & Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW) says that where a minor, understanding what they are doing, makes a contract for their own benefit, the contract is presumptively binding on them. This seems to be the reverse of the common law rule! Harry prefers the common law rule but wants to know which law prevails - the common law or the Act. Ms Ingrid Spencer has been allocated Harry's matter and asks you to write a note for the file explaining: which law applies to Harry's contract - the common law or the Minors (Property & Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW)? the reason for your answer - e.g., if you say the Act prevails over the common law, what is the reason for this? Note that you are not expected to demonstrate knowledge of contract law or decide whether Harry's contract is binding on him. The question is a legal system question directed at inconsistencies between statute and common law and how those inconsistencies are resolved