MINOR’S CONTRACT UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 Abhedya Rajeev BASICS OF LAW Sun, Aug 02, 2020, at ,11:47 PM As per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the word “Contract” means, under Section 2 (h) as a legal treaty or agreement. The essential elements of a valid agreement are: Offer Acceptance The purpose is to establish a legal relationship Legal Consideration Free consent Competent parties Legal Object Not expressly declared to be void One of the essentials of a valid contract is the parties' ability to contract. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states that the ability to obtain an individual contract is subject to the following three categories: Reaching the age of majority Soundness of mind not unauthorized to enter into a contract by any law under which that person is subjected to Essentials related to attaining the Age of Majority- As per the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the maximum age in India is defined as 18 years. Even a day less than 18 years makes him unfit to be a member. Any person, a domicile of India, who is not yet 18, is called a minor. A minor is a person who does not reach the age of 18 and everyone who gets into a contract has to attain 18 years of age. According to the Indian Contract Act, a child's contract is void, meaning it has no legal standing. So a contract with minor children is futile and meaningless because neither party can sign it. And even if a person has gained a majority, the same agreement cannot be ratified by him. The difference here is that the contract with a minor is null and void. The contract is, however, illegal as there is no statutory provision in this case. The agreement made with a Minor is void- Since any contract with a minor, i.e., a person is under 18 years old, will not be able to sign the contract, so any contract made with a minor is void-ab-initio. The minor can be the beneficiary of the agreement- Although a minor is not eligible to enter into a contract, he or she can be a beneficiary. Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, also states that while a minor may not be a partner in a partnership company, the company's benefits may be provided to him. The contract with minorities can, therefore, be extended further for the benefit. However a minor cannot contract, there is nothing in the Constitution Act that prevents him from making another party tied to minors. Therefore, a self-made note that is sufficiently useful for the child is useless and can be blamed. The minor is not allowed to be a partner in a joint venture company. However, an unauthorized person may agree to all parties involved, may be allowed to benefit from the partnership. Minor should get the benefit of being a minor- Even if a minor improperly represents himself or herself as an adult and takes a loan or enters into a contract, he or she may plead to a reduction as being a minor. The estoppel rule does not apply in the least. When a minor lends a false mortgage and sells the property, the Court considers that in the interim the child, and the consumer, both should be compensated for the cancellation of such agreement. Confirmation on reaching majority in age is not allowed- With the minor’s contract being null, he cannot confirm and validate it by attaining majority. For example, a young person borrows money and makes a note showing it. By acquiring the majority, he offers a whole new record instead of one used as a minor. The second note is useless without consideration. But the man who provides necessities to a young child is mounted by the nature of his or her relationship to the child, allowed the restoration of the property of the child, and not in terms of any contract, but the bond of common agreement. However, the child's property is legally responsible for the needs, and no personal liability is incurred for him. Contract by the Guardian of the minor- In some cases, the guardian of the child can contract in the name of the child on its behalf. Such a contract, when the caregiver enters for the benefit of the minor, may also be enforced by the minor. However, the guardian or parents should not bind a contract to buy immovable property. However, in a verified contract entered into by certified guardian, who has been appointed by the Court, if authorized by the court, minor’s property can be sold. Insolvency- The child could not be reported that it is insolvent as it will not be able to avail debts. If there are dues pending from the minor’s property then the minor is not liable to pay those dues. Joint contract by an Adult and a Minor- A joint contract between a minor and an adult, performed by a guardian of the child, the obligation of the contract falls on the adult. Liability for necessaries- As mentioned in section 68 each person shall have the right to reimbursement out of the estate of the minor for all the necessaries provided to the minor or his family. The requirements also consist of goods and services. If the child had been found liable for hiding the age, then he may be forced to return the payment. However, the minor is not obliged to an identical amount of payment, if any, as it would be a void contract. The results of the legal agreement with a minor- So it can be said that as per law, an agreement with formed a child/minor is void. Contract Law in India, says that only a man who is 18 years old and above is competent to contract. The basic reason for an agreement with a minor being void is that when the child puts a promise to do something and his promise forms an important part of the agreement, the contract is considered null and void because the child is not eligible to make the promise of a legal obligation. Any contract with a minor cannot claim a specific function or performance of an act, by the minor, as any agreement with minors is considered void-ab initio. LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS- Suraj Narayan v. ShukAheer - In this case, a person borrows some money at a young age and after getting old, makes a new promise to pay back the money and interest on it, but this contract has not worked out due to the reason that short-term consideration is not a good consideration. Srikakulam Subramaniam v. Subba Rao- To repay the promissory note and security debt of the minor’s father and his mother, he sold a piece of land to the governing body to satisfy the debt. He paid off mortgage loans and took over the land. Later, however, the minor demanded that his contract be terminated, and he wanted to own the land. But the court held that the contract was in the best of interest of the minor and contracted into by his guardian, his mother, which made her a lawful competent party. Kuwarlal v. Surajmal- With regard to the needs provided to children, it is held that the house given to the minor with rent on his residence and resources for continuing his studies is part of the necessities, so you have the right to claim reimbursement from the minor. Kundan Bibee v. Sree Narayan - S took some goods from K while S was still a minor. The goods were in relation to his business. On attaining majority, S took some more amount of money from K and made a contract to return the whole amount. It was decided that S was not liable for the goods that were given to him when he was a minor. However, S was made responsible for paying all that money as there was a new consideration.