This document is a student assignment on the topic of minor's agreements under Indian contract law. It includes an introduction defining a minor and acknowledging the teacher for the assignment opportunity. The synopsis outlines that the document will discuss how a minor's agreement is void under Indian law, exceptions for necessary items, rules regarding agreements with minors, and leading cases. The conclusion suggests some amendments to the law regarding restitution in cases where the minor is the plaintiff.
This document is a student assignment on the topic of minor's agreements under Indian contract law. It includes an introduction defining a minor and acknowledging the teacher for the assignment opportunity. The synopsis outlines that the document will discuss how a minor's agreement is void under Indian law, exceptions for necessary items, rules regarding agreements with minors, and leading cases. The conclusion suggests some amendments to the law regarding restitution in cases where the minor is the plaintiff.
This document is a student assignment on the topic of minor's agreements under Indian contract law. It includes an introduction defining a minor and acknowledging the teacher for the assignment opportunity. The synopsis outlines that the document will discuss how a minor's agreement is void under Indian law, exceptions for necessary items, rules regarding agreements with minors, and leading cases. The conclusion suggests some amendments to the law regarding restitution in cases where the minor is the plaintiff.
This document is a student assignment on the topic of minor's agreements under Indian contract law. It includes an introduction defining a minor and acknowledging the teacher for the assignment opportunity. The synopsis outlines that the document will discuss how a minor's agreement is void under Indian law, exceptions for necessary items, rules regarding agreements with minors, and leading cases. The conclusion suggests some amendments to the law regarding restitution in cases where the minor is the plaintiff.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. ALI NAWAZ ZAIDI s) as well as our dean Prof. M. SHAKEEL SAMDANI sb who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic Minor’s Agreement, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them. Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time frame.
SYNOPSIS
• INTRODUCTION • MINOR’S AGREEMENT
• MINOR’S AGREEMENT VOID
• CONTRACT FOR NECESSARIES
• RULES RELATING TO AGREEMENT WITH
MINOR PARTIES
• SOME LEADING CASES
• CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION. A minor is a person who has not attained the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject. This age has been fixed differently by different legal systems at different times, and different ages may be fixed for different purposes by the same time. The age of majority for purpose of contract is determined by the Indian Majority Act, 1857. According to the section 3 of the Act, a person is deemed to have attained majority, when he completes 18 years; but minor, under the superintendence of a court of wards, or of whose person or property a guardian has been appointed by the court, becomes major on the completion of 21st year. The capacity of a person with regard to marriage l, dower, divorce, adoption, religion and religious rites is not governed by the provisions of this Act. The law tries to reconcile two conflicting positions- a minor due to his immaturity arising out of his age has to be protected against enforcing unconscionably contracts which he may be led to enter, but a minor like an adult has to have his existence in the world and, therefore, some protection has to be extended even to minor’s agreement.
1 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872, S 11
MINOR’S AGREEMENT. A minor is one who has not attained the age of 18, and for every contract the majority is a condition precedent. By looking at the Indian law, minor’s agreement is a void one, meaning thereby that it has no value in the eye of the law, and is null and void as it cannot be enforced by either party to the contract. And even after he attains majority, the same agreement could not be ratified by him. Here, the difference is that minor’s contract is void/null, but is not illegal as there is statutory provision upon this.
MINOR’S AGREEMENT VOID.
Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides: - Every person competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and not disqualified from contract from any law to which he is subject. In other words, according to the section, a minor is not competent to contract. In the beginning2 there was some confusion, probably attributable to English law in the subject, whether such contracts were void or voidable. In England, before the Infant’s Relief Act, 1874, the position at common law was that Infant’s contracts were voidable (that is the infant could enforce them against the third party, though the latter could not against the infant) at his option, either before or after the attainment of his majority. The position has been considerably changed by this Act and minor’s contracts are now generally void with a few exceptions. It is not necessary to refer to the necessities of the English Law wherever it is necessary for the development of our own law. The Privy Council in its judgement in: Mohari Bibi V. Dhurmodas Ghose held that minor’s contracts were void ab initio. In this case a minor executed a mortgage in favour of a moneylender as a security against repayment of a loan of Rs 20,000 at 12% advanced to him. Later on, an action was taken against the money lender on behalf of the minor fir declaration that the mortgage was void and imperative. The Privy Council upheld the contention of the minor. Whether the minor could be compelled to restore the benefit received under a void contract is considered shortly. 3
3 MOHARI BIBI VS DHARMODAS GHOSE L.R. (1903) A.C. 6 A minor's agreement being void cannot be ratified on attaining majority. Thus, a promissory note executed by a minor and ratified on attaining majority in consideration of debts received during minority is bad for want of consideration and will not be enforceable.
CONTRACTS FOR NECESSARIES.
At common law, minor’s contracts for Necessaries supplied to the minor were binding on him. Necessaries, in a nutshell, are those without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. As, Pollock and Mulla states: - Necessaries must be things which the minor actually needs; therefore, it is not enough that they be of a kind which a person of his condition may reasonably want for ordinary use, they will not be necessary if he is already sufficiently supplied with things if they kind, and it is immaterial whether the other party knows or not. Necessaries include items and services that are necessary or indispensable to the minor’s health and safety, such as food, shelter, lodging and clothing. In some instances, automobiles are considered necessaries. The minor’s and his or her parents' economic status can be considered in determining whether an item is necessary or not. Some courts will enforce the contract as originally written while others may require the minor to pay the fair market value for the goods or services provided. 4The following two conditions are necessary or indispensable for liable of minor: the first, The supply must not be more than sufficient and the second is the supply must be according to the standard of minor.
RULES RELATING TO AGRERMENT WITH MINOR
PARTIES. Although, as a general rule, a contract with minors is void, we must keep in mind the following rules as well:
• A contract with minor is void and hence, no obligations can ever arise on him thereunder.
4 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1972, S 70 IN MULLA, PAGE 1048
• The minor party cannot ratify the contract upon attaining majority unless a law specifically allows this.
• No court can allow specific performance of a contract with minors because it is void altogether.
• The Partnership Act also prohibits minor’s from becoming partners in a firm. They can, however receive the benefits of partnership and ratify the same upon attaining majority.
• The rule of estoppel under evidence law does not apply to minor’s under contractual obligations. In other words, even if a minor forms a contract claiming majority age, legal obligations cannot arise against him.
• Parents or guardians of minors can name them in contracts only if it benefits them. But even in this case, the minor cannot be personally liable. 5
SOME LEADING CASES : -
• In the case Amolakchand Seth v. Pralhadsingh6 ,the Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that for plaintiff to be entitled to compensation under a void contract Plaintiff should have not have had the knowledge that the contract was void ab initio, in case it is void ab initio and only then section 65 would apply. • It was held in Bankey Prasad Bihari v. Mohendra Prasad7 case that section 70 is applied in contractual cases and a minor cannot be held liable under the same as a contract with a minor is void ab initio.
• In the case Sadhu Laxmi Sunderamma v. Sadhu Suryanarayana, a claim lies only and only against the estate of a minor, and the father of the minor cannot be held liable. Only if the minor
5 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872 S 70 IN MULLA PG. 1049
6 AMOLAKCHAND SETHV. PRALHADSINGH, 27 MARCH, 1967 7 AIR 1953 All (97) has his own estate, then a minor can be held to be liable.8
CONCLUSION. The position of the law on whole is satisfactory. However, in one aspect the law needs a change. It is suggested that section 11 of the Indian Contract Act may be amended so as to exclude from its purview contracts of service of minors if in the opinion of courts, they are beneficial to the minor. It may also be better to clarify the position in the matter of restitution where the minor is the plaintiff. Section 65 may be made applicable to those cases where a person is included to enter into an agreement with minor on false representation that he is a minor, or where a person is able to prove that he was not aware of his minority. Similarly, section 65 should apply in favour of the minor where, say, the minor has sold the 8 AIR 1953 MAD (274) goods to a person who has not paid the price.
