Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The capacity to contract is a fundamental element of a valid contract under law. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, explicitly addresses individuals lacking such capacity, including minors. A contract entered into by a minor is generally considered ‘void ab initio’, meaning ‘void from the beginning’. This principle stems from the legal system’s recognition of a minor’s limited understanding and vulnerability, aiming to protect them from being exploited through unfavorable agreements. This commentary will delve into the implications of this legal stance, exploring its rationale and exceptions.
What is a Minor’s Contract?
According to Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person who has not completed eighteen years of age is considered a minor. Consequently, any agreement entered into by or on behalf of a minor is generally not enforceable by law. This is a crucial safeguard built into the legal framework.
‘Void Ab Initio’ – Meaning and Implications
The term ‘void ab initio’ signifies that the contract was never legally valid from its inception. It’s as if the contract never existed. This has several key implications:
- No Legal Rights or Obligations: Neither the minor nor the other party can enforce the contract.
- No Ratification: A minor cannot ratify (approve) a contract upon attaining majority, making it enforceable retrospectively.
- Restitution: While the contract is void, the minor is generally obligated to return any benefit received under the contract if possible. This principle is based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, explicitly states that a minor is not competent to contract. This section forms the cornerstone of the legal principle. Further, Section 26 specifically deals with agreements that are void ab initio, including those with minors.
Exceptions to the Rule
While the general rule is that a minor’s contract is void ab initio, there are certain exceptions:
- Necessaries Supplied: A minor is liable to pay a reasonable price for ‘necessaries’ supplied to them. Necessaries are defined as goods and services essential for the minor’s sustenance (food, clothing, lodging, education, medical care). This liability isn’t based on a contract but on the principle of quasi-contract.
- Contracts of Service (with parental consent): Contracts entered into by a minor for the benefit of the minor, with the consent of their guardian, are enforceable.
Case Law Illustration
In the landmark case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), the Privy Council held that a minor’s agreement to repay a loan was void ab initio, and the lender could not recover the loan amount even though the minor had received it. This case firmly established the principle of ‘void ab initio’ in relation to minors’ contracts.
Rationale Behind the Rule
The rationale behind rendering a minor’s contract void ab initio is rooted in public policy. It aims to protect minors from their own inexperience, lack of judgment, and potential exploitation by more knowledgeable adults. The law recognizes that minors may not fully understand the consequences of their actions and therefore requires legal protection.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a minor’s contract is indeed ‘void ab initio’ under Indian law, as enshrined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This principle, reinforced by judicial precedents like *Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose*, serves as a vital safeguard for minors, protecting them from unfavorable agreements and exploitation. While exceptions exist for necessities and contracts beneficial to the minor with parental consent, the overarching principle remains that a minor lacks the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract. This legal framework reflects a societal commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.