LAW OF CONTRACT-I

Continuous Internal Assessment-III

Research Proposal on Contracts with Minor

Submitted By Submitted To

Arzoo Kedia Mr. Amitesh Deshmukh

Roll no. 84 Assistant Professor

Semester-I, Section-C Law of contracts

B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

Introduction

The Indian Contract Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that

permits businesses all over India to enter into several contracts. But to
be considered "Up to Date" with the most recent standards and rulings,
the act will need to be reviewed in some way. Section 10 requires that
parties must be competent to contract and section 11 defines who are
competent to contract. In the following article I will attempt to
highlight the problem of minor agreements in modern contracts
according to section 11.

Statement of Problem

“Section 11 of the Act specifically bars a minor from entering into a

deal. The consequence of this explicit prohibition is that any contract
entered into by a minor shall be null and void from the beginning,
irrespective of whether the other party was aware of his minority or
not.”1

A minor with sufficient technical proficiency in the spread of fraud,

money transfers, and more is aware of what he is doing and shouldn't
be protected because of voidability.

As a result, it becomes necessary to modify or be flexible with regard

to a minor's contractual liability in India under the “Indian Contract
Act of 1872”. “Minor's agreement is void/invalid, yet isn't illicit as
there is no legal arrangement upon this.”2

1
Rachit Garg, Concept of Estoppel in Minor’s Contract : The Indian Contract Act, 1872,
IPLEADERS (Mar. 16, 2021), https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-estoppel-minors-contract-indian-
contract-act-1872/ (last visited Oct 14, 2023).
2
“Contract with Minor: Time ripen for change or not,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4937-contract-with-minor-time-ripen-for-
change-or-not.html"(last visited Oct 14, 2023).
Question

1. Is it justified to let minors get away with fraud solely on the

basis of their age?
2. In the era of the worldwide emergence of contracts with
influencing teens, is it fair to declare contracts with minors void
save that of necessity?

Research proposal

Minor agreements

“The Indian Majority Act, 1875” states that anyone under the age of 18 is a
minor.

In “Mohiri Bibi v Dharmodas Gosh”3, it was concluded that an agreement

with a minor would be void ab initio and that an infant should not be
subjected to any arrangement that is enforced against them.

However, the courts should ensure that minors are not given any undue
advantage due to their minority status. Also, the courts must ensure justice
for the major.

As per “section 65 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872”:

“When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes

void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or
contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person
from whom he received it.”4 Here, any person includes minor.

3
(1930)ILR30Cal539(PC)
4
“Indian Contract Act, 1872, TO DEFINE AND AMEND CERTAIN PARTS OF THE LAW RELATING TO
CONTRACTS. (1872)", http://indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2187 (last visited Aug 29,
2023).
Doctrine of Estoppel

Estoppel is the legal term for when a man's own action or acceptance
prevents him from claiming or pleading the truth. A minor is not
subject to any estoppel. If a minor enters into a transaction in an
unethical or fraudulent manner by misrepresenting oneself as a major.
Later, he can use his position as a minor for defence.
This assumes the minor to be innocent and unable to take decisions
however, new age minors perform tasks on par with adults and are self
reliant, specially with the advancement of technology. When it comes
to minors in the twenty-first century, who are not only quicker than
earlier generations at analysing and putting technological knowledge
into practice but also cautious of their acts amounting to illegal
conduct, a fresh strategy needs to be taken. If a loophole like this is not
closed, it encourages the incoming generation of kids to engage in
internet frauds and crimes without worrying about negative
consequences.

Conclusion
We learned from the Raj Rani case that adults are willing to exploit
minors even when they are under an apprenticeship contract. Such
things can be avoided by strict laws. Also, compensation to and from
 minors must be included under “section 39 and section 41 of the
Specific Relief Act”. Changes in the act are necessary for both, the
protection of minors as well as to prevent them from misusing their
minority status.

References
1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872
2. The Specific Relief Act, 1963
3. Law of Evidence Act, 1872
4. Mohiri Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose, (1903) 30 PC 539
5. Raj Rani v Prem Adub, (1949) 51 BOMLR 256