LAW OF CONTRACTS

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT 2

CASE:-
Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd (1935)

BY:-

Sudipta Banerjee

1st B.B.A LL.B

DIV – B

PRN- 13010124103

1
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

Introduction
When two or more parties who are competent enough to understand the terms of an agreement and
eligible to get into an agreement come together and agree upon the same terms in the same manner
then such agreements are termed as contracts. According to Indian Contract Act and Indian Majority
Act only those parties who are not minor that is those parties who are above 18 years only can enter
into a contract. However there is some exception like partnership agreement where the minor can
derive just the profits out of the business or maintenance contract where a contract with a minor is
valid. Our case is dealing with one such instance. The other aspect is dealing with something which
is pretty commonplace in today’s work field. The employee is trained on the expense of the employer
company and in return the employer has to work for the institution for a fixed period of time and
such contracts are valid. But the difference in opinion arises when there is a minor involved.
Therefore we need to see whether the contract will be valid in this case or not.

Contract with a minor party

Indian Courts have applied this decision to those cases where the minor has incurred any liability or
where the liabilities on both sides are outstanding. In such cases, the minor is not liable. But if the
minor has carried out his part of the contract, then, the Courts have held that he can proceed against
the other party. The rationale is to protect minor's interest. According to the Transfer of Property Act,
a minor cannot transfer property but he can be a transferee (person accepting a transfer). This
statutory provision is an illustration of the above principle.
The following points must be kept in mind with respect to minor's contract:
(a) A minor's contract is altogether void in law, and a minor cannot bind himself by a contract.
If the minor has obtained any benefit, such as money on a mortgage, he cannot be asked to
repay, nor can his mortgaged property be made liable to pay.
(b) Since the contract is void ab initio, it cannot be ratified by the minor on attaining the age of
majority.
(c) Estoppel is an important principle of the law of evidence. To explain, suppose X makes a
statement to Y and intends that the latter should believe and act upon it. Later on, X cannot
resile from this statement and make a new one. In other words, X will be estopped from
denying his previous statement. But a minor can always plead minority and is not estopped
from doing so even where he had produced a loan or entered into some other contract by
falsely representing that he was of full age, when in reality he was a minor.

But where the loan was obtained by fraudulent representation by the minor or some property was
sold by him and the transactions are set aside as being void, the Court may direct the minor to restore
the property to the other party.
Thus, according to Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Court may, if the minor has
received any benefit under the agreement from the other party require him to restore, so far as may
be such benefit to the other party, to the extent to which he or his estate has been benefited thereby.
(d) A minor's estate is liable to pay a reasonable price for necessaries supplied to him or to anyone

2
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

whom the minor is bound to support (Section 68 of the Act).

The necessaries supplied must be according to the position and status in life of the minor and must
be things which the minor actually needs. The following have also been held as necessaries in India.
Costs incurred in successfully defending a suit on behalf of a minor in which his property was in
jeopardy; costs incurred in defending him in a prosecution; and money advanced to a Hindu minor to
meet his marriage expenses have been held to be necessaries.
(e) An agreement by a minor being void, the Court will never direct specific performance of the
contract.
(f) A minor can be an agent, but he cannot be a principal nor can he be a partner.
He can, however, be admitted to the benefits of a partnership.
(g) Since a minor is never personally liable, he cannot be adjudicated as an
Insolvent.
(h) An agreement by a parent or guardian entered into on behalf of the minor is binding on him
provided it is for his benefit or is for legal necessity. For, the guardian of a minor, may enter into
contract for marriage on behalf of the minor, and such a contract would be good in law and an action
for its breach would lie, if the contract is for the benefit of the minor (Rose Fernandez v. Joseph
Gonsalves, 48 Bom. L. R. 673) e.g., if the parties are of the community among whom it is customary
for parents to contract marriage for their children. The contract of apprenticeship is also binding.
However, it has been held that an agreement for service, entered into by a father on behalf of his
daughter who is a minor, is not enforceable at law (Raj Rani v. Prem Adib, (1948) 51 80m. L.R. 256).

Facts:
Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd (1935) the minor is a professional boxer Have a contract with the
British Boxing Board of Control. By the agreement, the minor would lose his ‘purse’ (payment for
the fight) if he were disqualified. The agreement was held to be binding on the minor since it was not
only to encourage clean fighting, but also proficiency in boxing and therefore of benefit to minor.
Contract of Service also include contracts of apprenticeship, education and training.

Ratio:
The contract was held to be one for necessaries as it was for the infant’s “good teaching or
instruction whereby he may profit afterwards”. The most important part of the contract was the
instruction that would be received by the defendant from playing constantly with the plaintiff under
the conditions of a worldwide tour, a thing which a distinguished billiards player apparently
contemplates as part of his career.

3
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

ISSUES:

Issue 1: Whether there was a valid contract between the two parties

Sub issue 1: Whether there was a valid service agreement between the parties.

Sub issue 2: Whether a minor is able to get into a service agreement.

Issue 2: Whether this contract will fall under supply of necessity contract

Sub issue 1: Whether the service provided in exchange of consideration taken was a necessity.

Sub issue 2: Whether the contract between the parties are valid despite a minor being involved.

Issue 3: Whether the contract is valid and enforceable

Sub issue 1: Whether the contract was valid and enforceable.

Sub issue 1: Whether the aggrieved party is entitled to get it reimbursed for the necessities provided.

4
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

RULES
STATUTES
1. Article 21A- Right to Education where the state shall provide free and compulsory education
to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the state may, by law,
determine.
2. Indian Contract Act 1872- Sections 11, 18, 2A, 7, 14, 68, 21A, 68(2).

CASE LAWS

1. As stated in Umrao Singh v. Firm Banarasi Das Dip Chand1 a person is entitled only out of
a minor’s estate and nothing more and cannot claim interest on the amount claimed.
2. In Gursaran Lal vs. Seral Kumar2 a minor is entitled to the profit out of the contract if not the
loss.
3. Roberts v. Gray3 in this case the defendant, an infant agreed with the plaintiff, a noted
billiards player, to join him in a billiards-playing tour of the world. The plaintiff spent time
and money in making arrangements for billiards matches, but the defendant repudiated the
contract. The plaintiff succeeded in recovering damages for the breach of the contract.
4. A person can get reimbursement from the property of a minor for the maintenance an this was
supported by Umrao Singh v. Firm Banarasi Das Dip Chand4.
5. Manmatha Kumar Saha v. Exchange Loan Company Ltd5.
6.

1
AIR 1927 Lah 414; Manmatha Kumar Saha v. Exchange Loan Company Ltd AIR 1976 Cal 567.
2
Gursaran Lal vs. Seral Kumar AIR 1956 All136.
3
(1913)1 KB 520: (1911-13) All ER Rep 870 (CA)
4
AIR 1927 Lah 414; Manmatha Kumar Saha v. Exchange Loan Company Ltd AIR 1976 Cal 567.
5
AIR 1976 Cal 567

5
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Whether there was a valid contract between the two parties
In order to have a valid contract, there has to be a valid offer, valid acceptance and reasonable
consideration, there should be competency in the parties to contract, consent should be free and the
object should be lawful. In this case we find that all aspect of a valid contract is present except the
fact that only one is fully competent to contract and the other is not because he is a minor.

Sub issue 1: Whether there was a valid service agreement between the parties.
The question over here whether the agreement entered into by the parties are valid or not, whether
there is any kind of absence of knowledge regarding the subject matter and the parties who are
involving themselves in the contract.

According to section 11 of Indian Contract Act 1872, a person must attain the age of majority in
order to enter into a contract. So apart from the fact that one of the parties was a minor we can see
that all the elements of valid contract are present.

There is no case of misrepresentation (section 18 of Indian Contract Act 1872) as both the parties had
full knowledge regarding the subject matter of the agreement and the parties that are involving
themselves in this contract. A minor was agreed to be trained at and by the coaches of white city
stadium in return of which he will play matches only on their behalf. The knowledge of the same was
available to all.

There was a valid offer as according to section 2A of Indian Contract Act 1872 as there was an
intention to create a legal relationship and it was properly communicated. The acceptance also was
valid as it was absolute and unqualified as required by section 7 of Indian Contract Act 1872.

According to section 14 of Indian Contract Act 1872 a consent is said to be given freely when there
is absence of any element like coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake. In
this case we can see that the decision of the parties where not waivered by any of these. Thus, we can
safely concur that consent was given freely.

Summarily there was a valid service agreement between the parties, except the fact that one of them
was a minor.

Sub issue 2: Whether a minor is able to get into a service agreement.

This agreement cannot be considered only a service agreement as the training offered to the minor
was the part of education which formed a good teaching or instruction whereby he may profit6 after
wards as in the forthcoming days. Therefore this situation is complying with one of the peculiar cases
where a minor can also get into a contract i.e. the contract of necessity according to section 68 of
Indian Contract Act 1872 and also complying with the philosophy of Gursaran Lal vs. Seral Kumar

6
Gursaran Lal vs. Seral Kumar AIR 1956 All136.

6
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

that a minor is entitled to the profit out of the contract if not the loss. Thus, the agreement will hold
good in the eyes of the law.

Issue 2: Whether this contract will fall under supply of necessity

contract
Sub issue 1: Whether the service provided in exchange of consideration taken was
a necessity.
This is a contract is a necessity contract as it is a part of education. And education being a
Fundamental Right under Article 21A proves the fact that it is considered a basic necessity. 7 Thus
even sports are a type of education which will help the person enjoying the benefit of it in future.
Over here it was surely a necessity contract. “In English law contracts of services and apprenticeship
are put on the same footing and in the same category as contracts for necessaries.” The well-known
English case on the subject is Roberts v. Gray8. In this case the defendant, an infant agreed with the
plaintiff, a noted billiards player, to join him in a billiards-playing tour of the world. The plaintiff
spent time and money in making arrangements for billiards matches, but the defendant repudiated the
contract. The plaintiff succeeded in recovering damages for the breach of the contract.

Sub issue 2: Whether the contract between the parties are valid despite a minor
being involved.
According to Section 68 if a person incapable of entering into the contract specially a minor can be
also be a party to a contract if the contract is dealing with providing necessities to the person so
called incapable. And the person who is providing such necessities is entitled to get reimbursement
for the amount spent. Over here the person who has provided the minor with the necessity termed as
education is expecting to get reimbursement in his own manner i.e. asking him to play boxing
matches on his behalf which he is entitled to according to Section 68(2).

Issue 3: Whether the contract is valid and enforceable

Sub issue 1: Whether the contract was valid and enforceable.

The contract is valid because it is complying with all the required terms and condition of a valid
contract according to Indian Contract Act, Indian Majority Act and all other related laws of the land.
This fact is proved earlier in Issue1 and Issue 2 considered collectively. The fact that one of the
parties is a minor that was challenging the contract’s effectiveness is also explained with necessary
backing of statutes and case laws. Therefore we can safely concur that the contract was valid and
enforceable in the eyes of law.
7
Article 21A
Right to Education where the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the
state may, by law, determine.
8
(1913)1 KB 520: (1911-13) All ER Rep 870 (CA)

7
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

Sub issue 2: Whether the aggrieved party is entitled to get it reimbursed for the
necessities provided.

The aggrieved parties cannot get damages as there is a minor involved. However the party is entitled
to get the amount or money equivalent they spent on the minor for the necessities provided unless he
is legally bound to support the aforesaid incapable person 9. This has been provided in Section 68 that
a person can get reimbursement from the property of a minor for the maintenance and this has also
been supported by case laws like Umrao Singh v. Firm Banarasi Das Dip Chand10.

9
Jai Indra Bahadur Singh v. Dilraj Kaur. AIR 1921 OUDH 14
10
AIR 1927 Lah 414; Manmatha Kumar Saha v. Exchange Loan Company Ltd AIR 1976 Cal 567.

8
 LAW OF CONTRACTS

CONCLUSION
After inspecting all the issue we have reached at a reasonable conclusion that the contract entered
into by the minor is valid in all aspect as it is conforming to all the provisions of a valid contract as
mentioned in Indian Contract Act. And despite the fact of a minor being involved in the contract the
contract will hold good in the eyes of law as it is regarding providing necessity to a person inacable
of doing so for himself.

We are at one with the Kings’ Bench of England regarding the matter that in case of necessity the
contract with a minor is valid and enforceable and the person providing the same is enable to recover
the same from the minor’s property. Therefore the minor may not be asked to fulfil the contract but
the necessity provider has right to recover the money or effort spent behind the entity’s necessity.

This case is a classic example of minor contracts and service contract taken together. The judgment
beautifully explains the effect of minority on any service or employment contract especially when the
contract is regarding provision for necessity. The ratio of this case has been used in many honourable
courts for furnishing valuable judgment and might also be considered in future whenever a case
crops up in future dealing with the aspects of minority and necessity. But it is advisable that before
entering into such contract to keep a guardian as a guarantor which the affected party failed to do.