Indian Contract Act, 1872

Discuss the validity of contracts by minors?

According to the Indian Majority Act, of 1875, a minor is a person who has not completed 18 years of his age on the date of the contract. But in the following two cases, the minority of a person would continue up to the completion of 21 years of age:

– where a guardian to the person or property of a minor is appointed by the court.

– when the minor is under the guardianship of the Court of Wards, i.e. minor’s property is looked after by the Court of Wards.

Validity of Contracts by Minors

1. Minor’s contract is absolutely void

In Mohori Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose Privy Council held that a minor’s contract is void ab initio and not merely voidable. A minor’s agreement is absolutely void, neither the minor nor the other party acquires any right or incurs any liability under the agreement. So a minor is neither liable to perform what he has promised to do under an agreement, nor is he liable to repay money that he has received under it. The reason underlying this rule is that a minor is incapable of making a rational judgment of the effects of a contract in his own interest, i.e., he is not supposed to have the experience of judging what is good or bad for him.

However, Section 68 of the Contract Act states “If a person, incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person, who has furnished such supplies, is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.”

2. Minor can be promised

An agreement is void as against a minor but a minor can derive benefit under a contract. The privilege of the minority is available to the minor only. Other people cannot avoid the contract because the promisee is a minor.

3. A minor’s agreement cannot be ratified

Since an agreement with a minor is void ab initio, i.e., it does not exist in the eyes of the law, it cannot be ratified by a minor after completing the age of majority.

4. A minor can always plead his infancy

So even if a minor has induced the other party by misrepresenting his age, he cannot be sued either in contract or in tort i.e., common law for fraud. But where a loan etc. is obtained by a minor by fraudulent representation and is set aside, the court may ask the minor to restore the property purchased out of such money to the other party. This may be allowed by the court on equitable considerations.

5. Minor’s parents

Agreements made by a minor are not enforceable against his parents, even though they are for the necessities supplied to the minor. However, if the minor is acting as an agent for his/her parents, then the parents would be bound by the obligations agreed to by the minor.

The position of a minor as regards his agreements may be summed up as follows:

  • An agreement with or by a minor is void ab initio.
    Example. A minor executed a mortgage for 20,000 and received 8,000 from the mortgagee. Then he sued for setting aside the mortgage. The mortgagee claimed a refund of 8,000 which he had paid. Held, an agreement by the minor was void and the mortgagee could not recover the amount of 8,000.
  • An agreement with a minor cannot be ratified or approved by the minor on attaining the age of majority.
  • If a minor has received any benefit under a void agreement, he cannot be asked to compensate or pay for it, as it would be an indirect method to enforce an otherwise void agreement.
  • Estoppel does not apply to minors. A minor cannot be estopped to set up a minority even when he enters into a transaction by falsely misrepresenting his age.
  • There can be no specific performance of the agreements entered into by a minor as they are void ab-initio.
  • A minor is liable for “necessaries” supplied or necessary services rendered to him or anyone whom he is legally bound to support.

Discuss the validity of contracts by minors? Read More »

A Simple Silence as to Case isn’t a Fraud

Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 characterizes extortion as any act committed by a party to a contract with an expectation to betray another party there to or to actuate him to enter into the contract.
Fraud implies and incorporates any of the taking after acts committed by a party to a contract or with his conspiracy, or by his operators, with expectation to hoodwink another party or to initiate him to enter into the contract:

  • The recommendation, of that which isn’t genuine, by one who does not be true.
  • The active concealment of a reality by one having knowledge.
  • A guarantee made without any deliberate of performing it.
  • Any other exercises implied to deceive.
  • Any such act or exclusion as the law uncommonly pronounces to be false. The common run the show is that a individual require not unveil to the other party the fabric truths which he knows but he must abstain from dynamic mis-statements. This implies unimportant quiet isn’t a extortion. Clarification to Section 17 more over lays down that simple quiet as to the truths likely to influence the readiness of a individual to enter into a contract isn’t a fraud.

There are In any Case Two Exemptions to this Rule

1.Where the circumstances of the case are such that, respect being had to them, it is the obligation of the individual to keep silent to speak.

Example. A sells by auction to B. his girl, who has just gotten to be a major, a horse which A knows to be unsound. Here A’s quiet would sum to extortion, respect being had to the relationship between the parties.

2.Where the quiet is, in itself, identical to speech.

Example. B says to A, “In case you are doing not deny it, I might accept that the horse is sound.” A says nothing. Here A’s silence is equivalent to speech.

A Simple Silence as to Case isn’t a Fraud Read More »

Discuss the Agreements That are Against Public Policy?

An agreement is said to be opposed to Public Policy when it is harmful to the public welfare. Public Policy is that principle of law that holds that no subject can lawfully do that, which has a mischievous tendency to be injurious to the interests of the public, or which is against the public good or public welfare. Some of the agreements which are, or which have been held to be opposed to Public Policy and are unlawful are as follows:

1. Agreements of Trading With the Enemy

An agreement made with an alien enemy in times of war is illegal on the ground of public policy. Contracts that are entered into before the outbreak of war are either suspended or dissolved. According to the intention of the parties, these can or cannot be carried out by postponing performance till the end of hostilities.

2. Agreement to Commit a Crime

When the consideration in an agreement is to commit a crime, the agreement is opposed to public policy. Likewise, an agreement to indemnify a person against the consequences of his criminal act is opposed to public policy and hence unenforceable.

3. Agreements in Restraint of Legal Proceedings They include Agreements Restricting Enforcement of Rights

An agreement that wholly or partially prohibits any party from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract is void to that extent. Agreements curtailing the period of limitation. Agreements which curtail the period of limitation prescribed by the law of limitation are void because their object is to defeat the provisions of law.

4. Trafficking in Public Offices and Titles

Agreements for the sale or transfer of pubic offices and titles or for the procurement of a public recognition like Padma Vibhushan or Param Veer Chakra for monetary consideration are unlawful being opposed to public policy. Similarly, an agreement to pay money to a public servant to induce him to act corruptly or to retire is void on the ground of public policy.

  • Agreements Tend to Create Interest as Opposed to Duty
    If a person enters into an agreement whereby he is bound to do something which is against his public or professional duty, the agreement is void on the ground of public policy.
  • Agreements in Restraint of Parental Rights
    In the absence of the father, the mother is the legal guardian of her minor child. The right of guardianship cannot be bartered away by any agreement. Such an agreement shall be void on the ground of public policy.
  • An Agreement Restricting Personal Liberty
    Agreements which unduly restrict the personal freedom of the parties are void as being against public policy.
  • Agreements in Restraint of Trade
    An agreement that interferes with the liberty of a person to engage himself in any lawful trade, profession, or vocation is called an ‘Agreement in Restraint of Trade’. Such an agreement is void to that extent.
  • Agreement to Defraud Creditors or Revenue Authorities
    Such an agreement is not enforceable, being opposed to public policy.
  • Marriage Brokerage Agreements
    An agreement by which a person, for a monetary consideration, promises in return to procure the marriage of another is void, being opposed to public policy.

Discuss the Agreements That are Against Public Policy? Read More »

Scroll to Top