# Contracts with Minors
---
## Introduction
A minor, according to the Indian Contract Act 1872, is a person who has not completed eighteen
years of age. The law regarding contracts with minors is firmly established through various
judicial pronouncements, with the landmark case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
serving as the cornerstone of this legal principle. The fundamental rule is that agreements with
minors are void ab initio, meaning void from the beginning.
## Legal Position and Analysis
### 1. Basic Rule: Absolute Void
The primary principle regarding minors' contracts was established in **Mohori Bibee v.
Dharmodas Ghose (1903)**, where the Privy Council held that:
- A minor's agreement is absolutely void, not merely voidable
- The doctrine of restitution does not apply to minor's contracts
- No ratification is possible after attaining majority
In this case, a minor mortgaged his property to secure a loan. The Privy Council held that since
the minor was incapable of contracting, the mortgage was void ab initio.
### 2. Exception to Restitution Rule
While generally restitution is not allowed, courts have carved out exceptions in specific
circumstances:
a) **Leslie (R) Ltd v. Sheill (1914)**: The Court of Appeal held that when a minor obtains property
or money by misrepresenting their age, they cannot be compelled to repay it. However, if the
property is still traceable and in their possession, it may be recovered.
b) **Khan v. Khan (1974)**: The court established that if a minor's estate has benefited from the
contract, reasonable compensation for the benefit received may be recovered from the estate.
### 3. Beneficial Contracts
Certain contracts that are beneficial to minors are recognized as valid:
a) **Contracts for Necessaries**
- As established in **Nash v. Inman (1908)**, minors are liable to pay a reasonable price for
necessaries supplied to them
- Necessaries include:
- Food, clothing, shelter, and education
- Services essential for living
- Legal services for minor's benefit
The case of **Chapple v. Cooper (1844)** further clarified that what constitutes necessaries
depends on the minor's social status and actual requirements.
### 4. Contracts of Service and Apprenticeship
Courts have recognized certain contracts of service and apprenticeship as valid if they are:
- Beneficial to the minor
- Not prejudicial to their interests
In **Raj Rani v. Prem Adib (1949)**, the Bombay High Court upheld a minor's contract of service
in the film industry as it was beneficial to their career.
## Important Legal Principles
### 1. No Estoppel Against Minors
The principle established in **Mohori Bibee's case** and reinforced in **Sadiq Ali Khan v. Jai
Kishori (1928)** states that:
- A minor cannot be estopped from pleading minority
- Even if they misrepresent their age, the contract remains void
- The doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to validate a void contract
### 2. Position of Guardians
Regarding contracts made by guardians:
a) **Natural Guardians**:
- Can enter into contracts on behalf of minors
- Must act in the minor's best interest
- Contracts must be for the benefit of the minor
b) **Legal Guardians**:
- As established in **Subrahmanyam v. Subba Rao (1948)**, guardians appointed by court must
act within the scope of their authority
### 3. Recovery of Benefits
The position regarding benefits received under void contracts:
a) **Benefits Received by Minor**:
- Cannot be recovered unless property is traceable
- No personal liability to repay money borrowed
- As per **Leslie v. Sheill**, even fraud doesn't create liability
b) **Benefits Given by Minor**:
- Can be recovered if contract is executory
- If executed, generally no recovery possible
## Contemporary Applications and Developments
### 1. Digital Age Considerations
Modern courts have extended these principles to:
- Online contracts and agreements
- Digital purchases by minors
- Social media platform usage
### 2. Protection Mechanisms
Courts have developed additional safeguards:
- Requirement of guardian consent for significant transactions
- Enhanced scrutiny of contracts affecting minor's property
- Special protection in employment contracts
## Conclusion
The law regarding minors' contracts serves a crucial protective function while balancing
commercial interests. The fundamental principles established in Mohori Bibee's case continue to
govern this area, with courts adapting these principles to contemporary situations. The position
remains clear that minors' contracts are void ab initio, with limited exceptions for necessaries
and beneficial contracts.
