Minor’s Position under ICA, 1872

To understand minor’s contractual obligation we would have to travel the belowstated legal provisions.

What agreements are contracts? What are the essentials of a valid contract?

• Section 10 of the ICA provides that which agreements are not contract. Therefore, it has negative
• Positively, it provides that all agreements are contracts if they are made:

1. by the parties be competent to contract, (Section 11 & 12)
2. by the free consent of parties (Section 13).
3. for a lawful consideration. (Section 23)
4. with a lawful object. (Section 23)
5. not expressly declared to be void. (Sections 24-30)

Discuss the minor’s position and nature of minor’s agreement under the Indian Contract Act.

It is stated that every person intends to enter into a contract, inter alia, must be major person.

Position of Minor and nature of minor’s agreement:

A person below 18 or 21 years of age, as the case may be, is a minor. In England, the age of majority is 18 years. In Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), the Privy Council held that an agreement made by minor is void. In England, similar position exists.

Ratification of minor’s agreement:

As the minor’s agreement is void ab initio, the act can not be ratified after the minor has obtained the majority. Thus, the consideration furnished in respect of a transaction during minority can not be considered to be a valid consideration for a subsequent promise made by a person during his minority.

Ratification of acts done on minor’s behalf:

A minor can not ratify an act done on his behalf.

No Estoppel against the minor:

The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable against the minor. It is irrelevant that the minor has misrepresented his minority.

Return of benefit secured by fraudulent minor:

1. English Law: Doctrine of Restitution: According to this doctrine, the benefit received by minor is required to be restored back the traceable goods under the equitable doctrine. Thus, if the goods are not traceable, the same can not be restored back. In Lesile vs. Sheill it was held that as the money is not traceable, the money can not be returned back.
2. Indian Law: Compensation by a minor: Under Sections 64 & 65 minor is not bound to pay compensation as the minor agreement is void ab initio. In Khangul vs. Lakha Singh it was held by the Lahore High Court that minor can be asked to pay compensation. However, on the other hand, the Allahabad High Court in Ajudhia Prasad vs. Chandan Lal, held that minor is not liable for compensation. But, this controversy was put to rest by Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 33 of the SRA provides that the money compensation to be paid by the minor and it is irrelevant that the minor is plaintiff or the defendant. 

Minor’s liability for necessaries:

As a general rule minor’s agreement is void as initio. However, minor’s personal property is liable to reimbursement for supply of necessaries under section 68. Here the obligation of minor is not because of any contract but the obligation has arisen due to quasi-contractual obligations. English law also permits the similar action for the necessaries supplied.

Beneficial contract of service and apprenticeship:

1. English Law: Under English law an infant/ minor is bound by the contract of apprenticeship or service because such contracts are beneficial to him and help him in earning his livelihood. Therefore, infant’s liability is only for such contract which is beneficial to him. Thus, such contract is valid.
2. Indian Law: However, the position is different in India. In India, contract of service by minor or his guardian is void is void under the Indian Contract Act. However, under the Indian Apprenticeship Act, 1850 contract of service by minor or his guardian is valid.

Contract of immovable property by minor’s guardian:

Such contract is valid.

Contracts beneficial to a minor:

A minor contract is void ab initio and no liability can be incurred by a minor under the contract. However, a minor can accept the benefit of contract. Thus, if a minor a advanced a loan on mortgage, he can recover the loan. Similarly, a minor can sue on a promissory note executed in his favour. In the same way, if a minor’s guardian makes a contract for fire insurance of minor’s property, the minor is entitled to compensation in case of loss of property due to fire.

Minor’s position in Partnership:

A partnership requires a contact. As the minor is incompetent to contract, he is incapable of becoming a partner. Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act states that although a minor can not be a partner in a firm, with the consent of all the existing partners, he may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership. But the minor can not be made personally liable towards third parties, but only minor’s share is liable. On attaining majority. A minor has an option either to become a partner or to leave the firm.

Minor’s position in case of Negotiable Instruments:

According to Section 26 of the NI Act, a minor is authorized to draw, indorse, deliver and negotiate a negotiable instrument. Thus the act of minor binds the other parties and he does not himself incur any liability on the negotiable instrument.

Minor’s position in contract of agency:

Minor can not be a principal. But a minor may become an agent as he is only connective links between the principal and the third party. A minor is also not liable towards his principal as minor’s contract is void ab initio.

Minor’s liability when the same act result in a tort as well as breach of contract:

As the minor’s agreement is void, a minor is not liable for breach of contract. However, a minor is liable for a tort. However, if the same act is breach of contract and tort, permitting action for tort will indirectly result into the enforcement of an agreement against the minor. Therefore action for tort will not be permitted. But, if the act committed by minor is totally independent of breach of contract an action can be brought by the minor.