| Citation | (1914) 3 KB 607 |
| Date of Judgment | 1914 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Plaintiff | Leslie Ltd |
| Defendant | Sheill |
| Bench | King’s Bench Division |
| Referred | Section-11 and 13 of Indian Contract Act 115 of Indian Evidence Act. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiff in this case filed a complaint against the defendant under Sections 11 and 13 of Indian Contract Act and 115 of Indian Evidence Act. The defendant was a minor who obtained a loan from the plaintiff. The loan was obtained by misrepresenting himself as major at the time of contract. The plaintiff was a money lender and the defendant succeeded in deceiving himself as major and entered into a contract with plaintiff. He got a loan of 400 Euros from plaintiff by telling them a lie about his age as major.
ISSUES
1) Whether defendants are entitled to equitable restitution against loans given to minors?
2) Whether they could claim restitution either under action for tort arising out of contract, or of quasi-contractual claim?
ARGUMENTS
When this appeal was scheduled for a preliminary hearing, it was argued regarding equitable doctrine restitution. Which means that by misrepresenting age if an infant obtains property or goods, he can be asked to restore it but solely in the condition as long as it is traceable in his possession. Entering into a contract with A minor would be equal to entering into a void contract which means he will not be compelled to repay the value of the goods or restitute the consideration under the contract. The same principle of equitable restitution was applied and argued in this case. Moreover, the principle of restitution stops where repayment begins was also argued which means that in the light of the golden principle of justice and equity, if a person has enriched himself unjustly then the profits so earned must be returned.
JUDGEMENT
In the court of appeal, it was held that the money could not be restituted or recovered considering the fact that any agreement with a minor is void ab initio. Which means that the contract would be void from the starting point i.e., at the time of entering into it and would not have any legal effect. Moreover, it was held that if the possession is traceable, the same can be restituted as the doctrine of equitable restitution would be applied. Which means that the minor can be asked to restore it but solely in the condition as long as it is traceable in his possession.
It was held that the minor is not liable for any wrong arising from the contract and is enforcing the contract indirectly, because the contract with a minor is void and cannot be held liable.
The decree was passed in the favor of the defendant and the complaint so dismissed and the minor was not held liable.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Palak Kumari of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments