Issue 1

Whether there was binding contract between the parties?

It Is humbly submitted that a contract to be valid, should fulfill all the basic requirements of the
valid contract given under section 10 of indian contract act.

One of the essential to make the contract binding is the competency of parties to enter into a
contract.According to section 11 of indian contract act every person is competent to contract who
is of the age of majority,of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting any any law to
which he is subjected.the age of majority is generally eighteen except when a guardian of a
minor’s person or property has been appointed by the court.section 11 clearly declares that a
minor is not competent.

The rationale behind section 11 is that all parties to a contract must be competent to understand
their obligations, since mature mind is important for this purpose, claims made by plaintiff is
prohibited by law.

The privy council in Mohari Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose Sir Lord North observed that their
lordships are satisfied that the act makes it essential that all contracting parties should be
competent to contract and expressly provides that a person who by reason of infancy is
incompetent to contract cannot make a contract within the meaning of this act.

A minor can enter into a contract for basic necessities of life like shelter ,healthcare ,education
etc. in the case Jagon Ram Marwari v. Mahadeo Prasad Saho things may be a “necessary” to a minor,
but the quality or quantity supplied may render them unnecessary. Objects though of real use, but
excessively costly cannot be “necessaries” dev singh who was already consuming vitamin tablets,for him
acta g tablets were not a necessity. there are no legal restrictions on minor for buying over the
counter(otc) medicines.such medicines can be purchased from pharmacies ,supermarkets and
other retail outlets without a prescription.otc medicines include those used to treat minor illness.
the multivitamins do not come under the category of otc medicines as it can offer both benefit
and potential risk. Mr dev singh who was already undergoing the a medical treatment took the
capsules without the prescription and without his parent’s consent thus my client cannot be held
liable as mr dev singh was not competent enough to form a valid contract.
It is submitted that the company clearly mentioned in their advertisement that the capsules are
not meant to prevent or cure any illness.it would only increase Immunity,prevent fatigue etc. mr
dev singh who was already suffering from illness and was on vitamins prescribed by the doctor,
cannot claim compensation after stopping the consumption of the capsules as there is always a
reasonable time limit of the contract during which such relief could be claimed and in this case
the reasonable time limit was the time when the person is consuming these capsules and not after
that.moreover the amount of rs 50,000 was a mere puff the offer was only an advertisement
gimmick. as no such amount has been deposited anywhere like in the case of carlil vs carbolic
smoke balls, the company deposited the amount in the bank which confirmed the fact that the
company has the intention to pay the reward.

The offer made by the company was a general offer,it would be open for acceptance to any
number of persons but to make it a valid and binding contract it should be performed by the
ascertained people and the persons performing it should be competent to enjoy all the legal
consequences arising from it.

In case of bilateral contract, where there is a promise by each party to fulfil certain obligations to
complete a deal,then such contract entered by minor would be voidable i.e,it could be avoided by
one party but to protect minor’s interest ,the contract could be avoided by the minor and not the
other contracting party.but in case of unilateral contract,where only one party has performed its
obligation then in such case a minor cannot form a contract which would be valid or which could
be avoided by him.therefore my client is not liable to compensate the mr dev singh..

If an agreement is made with someone who does not have the legal capacity to emter into a
contract, It is no longer binding. A person who is unable to understand the effects and meaning
of the contract cannot be said to constitute a valid contract.this is called the ‘cognitive test’mr
dev singh being a minor did not have the full mental capacity to enter into the contract and make
it binding thus, there was no binding and valid contract between the parties.

It is submitted that Mr. Dev Singh bought the medicines which had packing date of 1st January,
wherein my client published the advertisement of the reward of Rs.50,000 on 15th January. So, it
is emphasized that the packaging which Mr. Dev Singh had didn’t contain the contract of Rs.
50,000, hence, he is not liable to claim the same.
In the case of LALMAN SHUKLA VS GAURI DATT, according to Section 8 of Indian
Contract Act which says

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the claim where the nephew of defendant absconded from
home and no trace of him was found, the defendant sent his servant to different places in search
of a boy and the servant failed to find him. After this the defendant issued handbills offering
reward of Rs.150 to anyone who might find the boy, then the plaintiff traced the boy in
Rishikesh, the plaintiff asked the defendant to bring the boy from there back home. Now the
defendant claimed the reward and it was held that there was no contract between the parties in
this case. In order to constitute a contract there must be an acceptance of the offer and there can
be no acceptance unless there is knowledge of the offer motive is not essential but knowledge
and intention are. In the case of public advertisement offering a reward the performance of the
act raises and inference of acceptance. This is manifest from Section 8 of Indian Contract Act
which provides that performance of the conditions of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal.