MINOR’S LIABILITY FOR NECESSARIES

The provision relating to the position of necessaries supplied to a minor occurs under
section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Sec.68 of Indian Contract Act says ‘If a person, incapable of entering into contract or
anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with
necessities 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.’

Illustrations

(a) A supplies B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to his condition in life. A is entitled
to be reimbursed from B’s property.

(b) A supply the wife and children of B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to their
condition in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from B’s property.

Here it is notable that the liability of the minor is not personal, it is only his property,
which is liable for meeting the liability for necessities supplied to him.
To establish the minor’s property liable for necessities the following two conditions are
required.
1. The contract must be for goods reasonably necessary for minor’s support in his
life.
2. The minor must not have already a sufficient supply of these necessaries.
It is also important to note that Indian Contract Act does not define the term
‘Necessaries’ but understood up to food, clothing and lodging. The English Sales of
Goods Act.1893 defines ‘The necessaries are the goods suitable to the life of infant or
other person, and to this actual requirement at the time of sale and delivery.’
In the case of Chappel v Copper, it was said that articles of mere luxury are always
excluded, though luxurious articles of some utility are allowed in some cases.

In the case of Jagon Ram v Mahadeo Prasad Sahu, it was observed that necessaries
mean goods suitable to the condition in life of the defendant and also to his actual
requirements at the time of the sale and delivery.

In the case of Nash v Imman, it was held that an infant like a lunatic is incapable of
making a contract of purchase, but if a man satisfies the needs of the infant or lunatic by
supplying to him the necessaries the law will imply an obligation to repay him for the
services so rendered, and will enforce that obligation against the estate of the infant or
lunatic.

There is no definition of what constitutes necessaries in the Act.

Under English law, necessaries are defined as “goods suitable to the condition in life of
the minor and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery.” Judicial
pronouncements provide more comprehensive meaning of necessaries and what it
includes.

In the case of Chappel vs. Cooper1, Alderson B described necessaries in the following
manner: “Things necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably
exist. In the first place, food, raiment, lodging and the like….Again, as the proper
cultivation of the mind is as expedient as the support of the body, instruction in art or
trade, or intellectual, moral and religious education may be necessary also…His (a
minor’s) clothes may be fine or coarse according to his rank; his education may vary
according to the station he is to fill…Thus articles of mere luxury are always excluded,
though luxurious articles of utility are in some cases allowed.”  It can be said that
necessaries include not only things that are absolutely necessary for survival but also
those that are required for a reasonable existence.

1
(1844) 13 M&W 252, 258.
In Kunwarlal vs. Surajmal, a house given on rent to a minor for living and continuing
his studies was deemed to be supply of necessaries suited to minor’s condition in life
and the Court allowed the recovery of the rent for the house.

BENEFICIAL CONTRACTS OF SERVICE AND APPERENTICESHIP

In 1903, a minor’s agreement was declared ‘absolutely void’ in the case of Mohiri bibi.
However, the present-day application of the case is confined to the cases where the
obligations of a minor under a void contract are sought to be enforced against him.

A minor can be a beneficiary or a promisee. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 allows a
minor to derive benefit under a contract even if he cannot enter into a contract. In the
eyes of the law, a minor is not treated as incapable of accepting benefits. As long as the
minor has paid the full consideration and nothing more is required to be done by him
under the contract or he is required to bear no obligation, he can obtain the benefit
stipulated.

POSITION IN ENGLAND

Under English law, contract of service and apprenticeship are put on the same footing
as contracts for necessaries.

For obvious reasons, trade contracts are not included in the category of beneficial
contracts. For instance, in Cowern vs. Nields, a minor was carrying out business as a
hay and straw merchant. He entered into a contract with the plaintiff for supply of
clover and hay and also received a cheque for the same. The clover delivered by the
minor was rejected as bad and he failed to deliver the hay. The action of plaintiff to
recover the amount of cheque did not succeed. Such contracts may be beneficial for
minor’s business and to minor himself but still they are not binding.

In Robert vs. Gray, the defendant was a minor who agreed to join a well-known
professional billiards player in a world tour together and compete against each other.
The plaintiff used his resources like money and time to make arrangements for the
matches but the defendant repudiated the contract.  It was held that the contract was
one of necessaries for it was for the minor’s “good teaching or instruction whereby he
may profit afterwards”. It was apparent that the minor was not employed by the
plaintiff but was receiving the benefit of advice and experience. The experience and
instruction gained by playing against the plaintiff on a worldwide tour was treated as a
part and parcel of a potential billiards player’s training and career. The plaintiff
succeeded in recovering damages for the breach of contract. The Court of Appeal
regarded it as a quasi-educational contract and accordingly, within the scope of a
contract for necessaries.

English law also recognises the need of a minor to gain experience and earn a living
and if such contracts were void or voidable, the minor would be hard pressed to find
employment. On the other hand, law seeks to protect a minor from exploitation.
Therefore, contracts of employment are valid as long as they are beneficial to and for
the minor, judged overall. However, it is imperative that the contract be looked upon as
a whole to determine whether it is beneficial to the minor or not.

POSITION IN INDIA

Unlike in English Law, there are different rules in India for contract of service than
those of apprenticeship. Minor’s contract of service is void, whereas that of
apprenticeship is valid.

Contracts of Service

In the case of Raj Rani vs. Prem Adib,2 the plaintiff, a minor, was allotted the role of
an actress in a certain film by the defendant, a film producer. The agreement was made
with her father. Subsequent, the role was given to another actress by the defendant and
the agreement with the father was terminated. It was held that neither the minor nor her
father could sue on the promise. The contract, if with the minor, was null and void. If
the contract was with the father, it was without consideration and thus, void. It was
2
AIR (1949) Bom 215.
clarified that the promise of a minor to serve was not enforceable against her and thus,
could not have furnished any consideration for the defendant’s promise to pay her a
salary.3

Position of a Minor in Partnership

Another instance is that a minor can be admitted to the benefits of partnership with the
consent of all the partners under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 though
he cannot be a partner in a partnership firm.

Upon attaining majority, a minor has the option to retire from a beneficial contract
provided he acts within a reasonable time. Even under English law, contracts relating to
an interest in land, obligations of share- holding, partnership agreements; and marriage
settlements etc are only voidable and not unlawful.

Contracts of Apprenticeship or Service

There are cases where a minor receives training or instruction that will profit him later
in life. The Indian Apprentices Act, 1850 provides for such contracts (a species of
contracts) deemed to be for the benefit of minors and are binding on them. These
contracts are in the nature of contracts of service. It is essential that the contract of
apprenticeship is made by a guardian on behalf of the minor for it to be valid as per the
Act.

The preamble of the said Act provides: “For better enabling children, and especially
orphans and poor children brought up by public charity, to learn trades, crafts and
employments, by which, when they come to full age, they may gain a livelihood.”

Contracts of Marriage:

In various cultures and also the Indian sub-continent, it is not unusual for parents to
arrange the marriages of their minor children. Prima facie, a contract for the marriage of
3
] AIR (1949) Bom 217
a minor is for his or her benefit. However, only the minor can get such a contract
enforced. The contract cannot be enforced against the minor.

Such actions find support in the court of law provided they are not in contravention of
the laws applicable to age of marriage. For example, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
prescribes a minimum 18 years of age for females for marriage. If an agreement is in
contravention of such statutory provisions, the agreement will be avoided. Thus, it is
inconsequential that the girl was a minor at the time of the engagement as long as she
would have completed 18 years of age on the day of her wedding. In such cases, the
non-performance of the other party can make them liable for compensation to the girl
for the “mental pain and suffering, lowering of esteem in society as well as the
expenditure on the engagement ceremony”.

Under the Shariat law, a minor girl can be given in marriage only by her father or her
guardian. In a particular case, it was medically ascertained that the girl had not yet
reached the age of majority. Furthermore, the kazi who performed the marriage
ceremony was aware of the fact of the girl’s minority and the consequent lack of
capacity. It was held that the marriage was not valid and the father was entitled to her
custody. The girl could not be forced to live with her husband in contravention of the
mandate of the Quran Sharif.