| Citation | (1914) 3 K.B.607 |
| Date of Judgment | 1914 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Appellant | Leslie Ltd |
| Respondent | Sheill |
| Bench | King’s Bench Division |
| Referred | Section-11 and 13 of Indian Contract Act 115 of Indian Evidence Act |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In order to acquire a loan from the plaintiff, the defendant falsely represented his age at the time of the transaction. The child spent the entire sum and made no repayments. He was sued by the defendant to recover money. Under Sections 11 and 13 of the Indian Contract Act and Sections 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff in this instance filed a complaint against the defendant. This case is well-known because it paved the way for the doctrine of equitable restitution to take hold.
ISSUES
- Whether the defendant is eligible for equitable restitution for the loan granted to the minor?
- Whether they were eligible to seek restitution through a tort action originating from a contract or through quasi-contractual claims?
ARGUMENTS
The issue of an infant’s fraud responsibility was at stake in the case of Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill. Sheill, the defendant, was a minor who fraudulently claimed to be an adult in order to acquire two financial loans from the plaintiff, Leslie Ltd. He didn’t give back any of the money; he just squandered it all. Leslie Ltd. sued Sheill to get the money back.
The court ruled that Sheill was not responsible for making reparations. Restitution is a type of equitable relief, according to the court, and infants are typically exempt from equitable remedies. The Court distinguished between debt repayment and money restitution.
According to the Court, if the obligation is paid off, it will not constitute restitution. It will resemble contract enforcement instead. Restitution “stops where repayment begins,” the court said. In a matter involving restitution against children, the court expressed the following opinions:
Restitution is permitted if the advantage gained by the minor under any agreement includes property, provided that the property can be located in accordance with the equitable doctrine of restitution. Minors cannot be held responsible for contracts in a way that would make it difficult to enforce the agreement directly.
Although this type of action was successful in Stocks v. Wilson, [1913] 2 KB 235, when the infant was ordered to refund the sum he had made from the sale of the furniture to the original seller. Leslie v. Sheill emphasised the point that enforcing a void contract would be equivalent to making a minor liable for any restitution or damages. Since the minor’s use of the money cannot be tracked, restitution should not be sought in this situation. Since the products may be traced back to the third party, equity will only permit the plaintiff to establish a right of action against the third party for tort of conversion.
Position in India-
In the case of Mohori Bibee [(1903) LR 30 IA 114], the issue of restitution in India in the event of a minor’s consent was first brought up. The argument in the case is that the minor should refund the advantage he has obtained under Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if the mortgage deed could not be enforced. The court decided as follows:
- The Court determined that because Section 64 of the Act only applies when the contract is voidable, reparation could not be awarded under that provision. The contract is null and void as to the minor.
- The court additionally ruled that Section 65 of the Act is relevant when a contract is declared void. There is no discussion of the “contract becoming void” since, in the first instance, there is no contract in the case of a minor, meaning that the agreement is void from the start.
JUDGEMENT
1) If a child misrepresents his age to acquire property or goods, he may be ordered to return it as long as it can be found in his possession. The equitable doctrine of reparation is what this is.
However, in the current instance, since the money was spent by the defendant, there was neither a chance to find it nor a chance to get back what was obtained through fraud, as requiring the defendant to pay the same amount as the loan received would amount to enforcing a null contract. Restitution ends when repayment starts, and equity does not enforce any contractual obligations against minors.
2) When the cause of action is ex contractu or is so closely related to the contract that it would be an indirect means of enforcing the contract, Infant cannot be held responsible for the wrong. However, an infant may be held accountable if the wrongdoing is related to the contract’s subject matter but is distinct from it in that it was not an action that was anticipated by the contract.
Although this type of action was successful in Stocks v. Wilson, [1913] 2 KB 235, when the infant was ordered to refund the sum he had made from the sale of the furniture to the original seller. Leslie v. Sheill emphasised the point that enforcing a void contract would be equivalent to making a minor liable for any restitution for damages. Since the minor’s use of the money cannot be tracked, restitution should not be sought in this situation. Since the products may be traced back to the third party, equity will only permit the plaintiff to establish a right of action against the third party for tort of conversion.
A tort or quasi-contractual claim in the current situation would equate to enforcing the contract by holding the defendant accountable for damages or repayment, hence no such action is warranted.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Anoskaa Barui of Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments