Ti LGAPAGITYITOLCONTRAGTIO ; Free consent Not expressly declared Parties competent to be void Section 10 to contract Essentials Lawful object Lawful consideration 2 According to Section 10 for enforceability of an agreement it is necessary that parties must be compe- tent to contra Section 11 provides who are competent to contract. It says that every person is competent to contract, who is— (a) major (©) of sound mind (©) not disqualified from contracting by law. < | Minor’s agreement ‘Who is a minor? According to Indian Majority Act, 1875 a minor is a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. Nature of minor’s agreement > Following are the key characteristics of minor’s agreement:- @ Minor’s agreement is void; @ No estoppel against minor; ii) Doctrine of restitution applies in accordance with Specific Relief Act; (iv) No ratification of minor's agreement; (v) Minor can be beneficiary to a contract (beneficial contracts); (vi) No liability in contract or tort arising out of contract Minor’s agreement is void Minor’s agreement is void 2 Indian Contract Act does not specifically lays down the fate of agreement if it has been entered into by a minor. However, it was authoritatively settled in Mohiri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose that minor's agreement is absolutely void. A minor cannot make a promise enforceable by law. Under English law the minor's agreement is not void, itis only voidable, ‘The rationale behind this position of law is that a minor may notbe in a position to adequately protect his interest while forming an agreement,‘The Indian Contract Act, 1872 No estoppel agaii st minor ‘©. There can be no estoppel against the minor age. Minor is not stopped from settin; can be no estoppels against the law, held liable under the agreement o even if he has acted fraudulently and misrepresented his 6 up the defence of minority. The reason behind this is that there In Khan Gul v, Lakha Singh the court held that minor cannot be n the basis of estoppel, Doctrine of restitution > English law: Under English law if the minor has unjustly entiched himself, equity demands that such Property or goods be restored. English court developed the doctrine of restitution in Leslie (R) Ltd. ‘Sheill. In this case the court held that restitition in case of minors is allowed only in the following cases: 1. If the benefit received by the minor is property, restitution is allowed provided that property is tracebale, 2. If the benefit received by the minor is money, restitution is not allowed. Indian law: Indian law with respect to restitution is slightly different from English law. In Mohiri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose the court held that minor is not liable under Section 64 and 65 of Contract Act to repay any money or compensate for any benefit. 2 In Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh the court held that doctrine of restitution finds place in Section 41 of Specific Relief Act (Section 33 of new Act), False representation by minor about his age gives rise to equitable liability. Court held that grant of restitution is not enforcement of contract but restoration of state of affairs as they existed before the formation of contract. Under Indian law minor is liable to restore the benefit whether he has acquired property or money. > This doctrine restitution is based on the principle that infant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud. No ratification of minor’s agreement > Aperson cannot ratify an agreement made by him when he was minor. Ratification dates back to the date of agreement and it would amount to enforcing a void agreement. Beneficial contracts 2 Minor is allowed to enforce a contract which is of some benefit to him and under which he is required to bear no obligation. Decision in Mohiribibi’s case is confined to cases where the minor is charged with obligations and other contracting party secks to enforce obligations. 2 In England contract of service and apprenticeship are kept on same footing as contract of necessaries, In India contract of service is void but contract of apprenticeship is valid. ‘2. In Raj Rani v. Prem Adib the plaintiff was minor and was allotted the role ina film by producer, the agreement was made with her father. The role was allotted to different artist. The court held that neither she nor her father could have sued on the promise, No liability in contract or tort arising out of contract No liability in contract or tort arising out of contract 2 Minor is not liable for a tort arising out of contract If the torts independent of the contract then the minor can be held liable. Liability of tort arising from the contract isan indirect way of enforcing an agreement.The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Persons of unsound mind Section 12 provides that a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment aso its effect upon his interests. A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound-mind, may make a contract, when he is of sound mind. A person who is usually of sound-mind, but occasionally of unsound-mind may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind. An agreement by a person of unsound mind is void. He cannot derive any benefit from it. For example © ‘A; patient in a lunatic asylum, who is at intervals of sound-mind may contract during those intervals. © ‘A, sane man, who is delirious from fever or who is so drunk that he cannot understand the terms of a contract or form a rational judgment as to its effect on his interests cannot contract whilst such delirium or drunkenness lasts. Under English law a person of unsound mind is competent to contract, although he may avoid the contract if he satisfies the court that he was incapable of understanding the contract. Contract is void- able at his option. Disqualified person Persons who are disqualified from contracting by any law to which they are subject are also incompe tent persons under Section 11,