body: I have been searching in several US contract law textbooks and on the web and I am unable to find the answer to this question.
  
  
  As background, I understand minors (those under 18) generally have full capacity to contract for necessities and if something is not a necessity the contract is voidable by the minor. So, **a contract for food, housing, etc. is fully binding on the minor but a contract for a solid gold panda is voidable by the minor.**
  
  
  The books go on to say that if a minor is from a "high station" that is, from a rich family, then an expensive necessity may still be a necessity. For example, **expensive clothes can be a necessity to a rich minor** while expensive clothes would not be a necessity for a minor or more moderate means.
  
  
  The **books, unfortunately, do not refer to the origin of this rule.** Is it from a case? Is it in the Restatement? Is there legislation on this point? Everyone seems to talk about it like it is a given like the sun rises in the east.
  
  
  
title: What is the origin of rule that expensive necessities are necessities for minors with proper socioeconomic status?