Select Page

Responsibility of the minor for necessities: Section 68 of the Indian Contracts Act provides that “if a person who is unable to enter into a contract, or someone whom he is legally required to assist, receives from another person necessities proportional to his state of life, the person who made these supplies is entitled to reimbursement of the property of that incompetent person.” Thus, if a minor or his relatives receive the essentials from someone, the minor`s property is responsible. Juvenile law and contract law do not really mix well, so in general, minors` contracts are avoided. In this article, you will learn more about a minor`s ability to contract. In certain circumstances, a guardian of a minor could enter into a valid contract on behalf of the minor. Such an agreement, concluded by the guardian for the benefit of the minor, could also be applied by the minor. If a person who is unable to enter into a contract is provided with essential property by another person, the person who delivered is entitled to reimbursement of the property of that incompetent person, including a child. But if the minor does not have his own property, he cannot be obliged to compensate the other person. A minor may act as an agent and bind his client by his actions without incurring any personal liability. The case dates back to 1903, when the Privy Council first concluded that a minor`s contract was void from the outset.

The position of the minor under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, must be concluded in such a way that a minor cannot enter into a contract and the same would be void from the outset. The minor may not avail himself of the ratification of the contract concluded by him during his minority to reach the age of majority. The reason for this is that ratification refers to the past when the person was still a minor, so a null treaty cannot be legitimized retrospectively. If necessary, a new contract may be concluded with a new counterparty after reaching the age of majority. In addition, the consent of a minor cannot be requested for a specific service, as this would result in the execution of an invalid agreement. However, a minor is only responsible for the use of necessities. According to the provisions of the Indian Contracts Act and the decision of the Privy Council, a minor cannot become a member of society. However, a minor may become a shareholder or member of a company if (a) the shares are fully paid up and (b) the articles do not prohibit it. The agreement of a minor is considered null and void, so there should be no obligation for either party to perform any part of the contract, and the effects of the contract are also null and void. But suppose that a minor who distorts his age in order to induce another to contract with him, will there be a confiscation strike against him? Money provided to a minor to defend himself in criminal proceedings or to cover the necessary costs of civil proceedings concerning him or to preserve valuable property of the minor from sale pursuant to a decree would be necessary. Under English law, the contract concluded by a madman is not void, but can be challenged at his discretion. This only happens if the other party has noticed insanity in the behavior at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

In India, it is not true that the agreement of the same minor was considered null and void and that the person with an unhealthy mind is considered incapable of entering into contracts, even if a mortgage is held valid in favour of a madman, as happened in Sheoratan v. Kali Charan. A minor cannot become a partner in a partnership. Under section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, a minor may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership for the time being with the consent of all partners. It can also be added that he can share the profits without incurring any personal liability for the losses. Contracts performed on the minor`s side are intended to exercise or enforce the rights of minors and not to impose liability. In the case of Hanmant Lakhshman v. Jayarao Narsinha ruled in the Bombay High Court that a minor may bring an action on bail. Criminal liability of the minor: The term “tort” implies a civil injustice for which the person concerned can bring an action. If a minor enters into an agreement by making a false declaration of his age, he cannot be prosecuted for infringement or in the form of damages for misdemeanour (i.e.

deception), as this would indirectly mean the nullity of the agreement. However, if the illegal act of the minor (i.e. a crime) is independent of the contract, the minor is liable for damages resulting from a crime. In the lightness of Burnard vs Haggis, A, a miner borrowed a mare from B to ride only under the instruction not to jump her. He lent the horse to his girlfriend, who jumped and killed her. He was held liable for tort. Article 68 used the word necessity in a technical sense to cover all the elements that the minor would need to comply with his conditions. Not all ornaments and expensive items for daily use are considered a necessity. For the granting of protection to a minor, his agreement is null and void. But there are also some exceptions. A minor is responsible for necessities. The word “necessities” is not defined in the law, but an illustrative explanation of the meaning of the term is given by Alderson B in Chapple v.

Cooper: “The things that are necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. In the first place, food, rinding, accommodation and others. Simple luxury items are still excluded, although luxury utensils are allowed in some cases. “A minor is also responsible for the necessary services provided to him, such as. B, the provision of education, medical facilities or legal advice […].