This article is written by Shruti Shama of 5th Semester of The Law School, University of Jammu, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
ABSTRACT
Any Contract is a valid contract when all its requirements are fulfilled. A Contract by a Minor is no Contract. In this article, I have tried to explain the position of a minor under the concept of Contract in India. The article is divided into various parts, wherein the different phases of the growth Contracts have illustrated the position of the minor in a much broader context.
Beginning with the concept of manner, moving towards the changing position of minors in a contract and finally ending with the position of a minor in the digital age, this article tries to explain it all.
INTRODUCTION
In India, the citizens of our nation are granted with various rights and the right to enter into an agreement with another person is one such right. The Contracts and the related rights, in India, are administered mainly through the Indian Contract Act, 1872[1]. This act covers all kinds of contracts including the electronic contracts as well. The Act has got specific provisions to deal with the position of minors in case of a contract under the mentioned act.
The Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 explains that a contact is basically an agreement that is enforceable by the law. The Section 10 of the act explains the concept of contract in such a manner that it categorically mentions all the requisites of a valid contract and those conditions are as follows:
- Existence of competent entities
- Consent between the entities
- Consent be free of any influence
- A valid and lawful consideration
- Agreement be not void under any law.
Out of all the essential requisites of a valid contract, the first one deals with the competency of the parties to the contract. This is where the topic of minor’s position in a contract is for the time mentioned.
WHO IS A MINOR?
The concept of minor has been mentioned in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, the act is silent upon the fact as to who is a minor. The only information in this regard is given in the Section 11 of the act which explains that a person who hasn’t attained the age of 18 years will be considered to be a minor.
In India, The Indian Majority Act of 1875[2]deals with the concept of major and indirectly, it also explains about the age of a minor. As per the section 3 of this act, a person of age 18 years is to be considered a major and in some exceptional cases, The age of a major would be 21 years. Thus, it is clear that a person below the age of 18 would be considered to be a minor.
The above-mentioned information is about the Minor as per the Indian Majority Act, 1875. However, there are other point of views as well which have dealt with the position of minor with regards to the Contracts in India. One such point has been mentioned below.
Privy Council’s View
The Privy Council in India was a major Judicial body before the Independence of India. In its majority of decisions, the Privy Council held that the Contracts enter into by the minors would stand Void ab Initio and this meant that such contracts would be void from the beginning. Before the year 1903, the position of the minor in the matter of contracts was uncertain and it was not clear that whether the contracts of a minor would be void or voidable.
In 1903, a landmark judgement was given by the Privy Council in the famous case of Mohori Bibi v. Dharma Das Ghose[3]. In this case, the Council adjudicated that a contract which is enter into by a minor would be considered as Void Ab Initio in the eyes of law.
The Law has provisions to protect the rights of the minors because it is believed that a minor person doesn’t have the required maturity to judge as to what is right and what is wrong. This is the reason that a contract entered into by a minor has no legal consequences.
POSITION BEFORE 1903’s JUDGEMENT
The position before the landmark judgement of 1903 was a bit different from the present-day situation. At that time, there were two views regarding the nature of a minor’s contract. As per the first view, such an agreement would be completely void. And as per the other view, it would be voidable. However, the judgment made the position clear. Moreover, the Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act makes it quite clear that a minor cannot enter into a contract.
Later, in some of its decisions, the Privy Council opposed the above given rule and held in the case of Srikakulam Subramanyam V. Kurra Subba Rao[4]that a minor’s parents could easily form a contract if such a contract is for the benefit of the minor.
These positions influence the present-day situation as well.
PRESENT DAY POSITION OF MINOR
The present-day position of Minors in a contract is clear. As per the law, an agreement by a minor would be null and void from the beginning. However, this rule has some relaxation to it and it is:
Agreement may be enforced for the benefit of Minor.
The above-mentioned rule protects the minor from any kind of legal consequence in case of an agreement entered into by him. However, if this rule becomes detrimental and causes any kind of loss to the minor, then the agreement shall be enforced in order to provide benefit to the minor.
Such an agreement can be enforced in various situations. In case, the minor has done his part of work and also paid the consideration for the contract, then the agreement can be enforced for the minor’s benefit.
The Indian Contract Act doesn’t specifically mention any such provision. But it is a well-established practice of the courts in India to accept such contracts as enforceable for the benefit of the minor.
This exceptional rule has been reiterated in the case of GENERAL AMERICAN INSURANCE V. MADANLAL SONULAL[5], where the court held that where the goods were insured in the name of the minor, then such a minor would be allowed to recover any insurance money after the loss.
No Estoppel against the Minor:
In the legal sense, the rule of estoppel is the rule according to which, in case a person has, by words or his conduct, led another person to believe something or some fact. Then in the later stage, such a person will be stopped by law to deny any such fact, even if such facts were untrue or were false. Thus, he would be liable and made to face the consequences of the false statements made by him.
Case: Jagar Nath Singh V. Lalta Prasad[6]
In this case, the court held that the rule of estoppel cannot arise in a minor’s case.
However, a minor can actually take the defence of infancy. Simply said, in case an infant fraudulently represents himself as a major and also induces the opposite party to contract with him, then such an infant won’t be estoppel from taking the defence of infancy. This was also held in the case of GADIGEPPA BIMAPPA METS V. BALANGOWDA BHIMANGOWDA[7].
If this rule of estoppel is also applied in the case of a minor’s agreement, then it would indirectly lead to the enforcement of a void agreement.
Doctrine of Restitution
Normally, a minor is not supposed to face any legal consequence of an agreement that he has entered as a minor. However, such a rule would make him all powerful and this would cause loss to every person who acts as the opposite party to such an agreement. The Indian Contract Act has specific provisions for the restitution but those provisions enshrined in the Section 64 and 65 do not apply in the case of an agreement entered into by a minor.
Thus, to tackle this situation and to provide some sought of relief to the other party, the concept of “Doctrine of Equitable Restitution” is made use of. As per this doctrine, in case a minor attains any assets by misrepresenting or concealing his age, then such a minor would be under the obligation to reinstate it when such an asset is traceable.
Case: Jagernath Singh V. Lalta Prasad[8]
In this case, the court held that if a minor has sold a property to another person by misrepresenting his own age, then such a minor would be entitled to the recovery of such Property only after the Restitution of the benefit they was received by him.
In general, this rule doesn’t apply to the cases where the minor has received money. However, this doctrine was extended to cover cash as well. This was done in the following case-
Case: Khan Gul V. Lakha Singh[9]
In this case, the court ordered the minor to return to the opposite party, Rs.17,500 which he had received as an advance payment for the sale of a land but later refused to comply with the agreement.
There are some scenarios where the plaintiff being the minor, isn’t required to pay anything back. This happens in case:
- The other party was all aware of the infancy
- The other party acted immorally with the minor
- The opposing party doesn’t adduce any evidence.
Thus, the doctrine of restitution is just an exception and not a permanent rule.
No Ratification at the age of majority
In general sense, Ratification means a subsequent approval or also approval of something. Under the Concept of Contract, if a minor, after attaining the age of a major, ratifies an agreement that he had entered into as a minor, then such a ratification would not make it a valid Contract. If it is so necessary, then a new agreement can be made between the parties. This concept can be well understood through a case law.
Case: Suraj Narain V. Sukhu Ahir[10]
In this case, it was held that if a minor has taken a loan of Rs.11,000 and has executed a promissory note in the favour of the lender, then in such a matter, the minor is not liable under such promissory note, neither during the age of minority nor after he has attained the age of a major. And in case, after attaining the age of majority, he executes another promissory note favouring the same person, even then the second promissory note would not be considered to be of binding nature.
Liability For Necessaries
The provision for this is given under the Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act. The things that are considered to be ‘necessary’ are the ones without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. The provision related to minor under this section is that if a minor, is supplied with various necessaries, then the person who has supplied all that is entitled to reimbursed. Such reimbursement is done from the property of the minor and not the minor himself.
This provision has different interpretations. One is that it is for the welfare of the persons who help. And the other interpretation can be that this provision actually provides an incentive for the people to help the incapables including the minors. Thus, this provision also acts as an assurance which encourages the people to help the minors in difficult times.
Apprenticeship Agreement are enforceable:
Such kind of agreement is made for the benefit of the minor. This agreement is entered into to enable the minor to learn new skills under a well-trained person at an early age of his life. Such agreements are considered to be enforceable under the law.
However, one thing must be kept in mind that such an agreement must be made as per the provisions enshrined in the Apprentices Act, 1961. All the requisites of such an agreement must be taken care of, otherwise such an agreement won’t be made enforceable.
POSITION OF MINOR IN DIGITAL ERA
All the rules and the laws relating to the contracts and the other fields were laid down way before the Digital age as we call it. At that time the dynamics of the society were different from what it exists in today’s world. Today, the minors of the society are entering into various kinds of transactions online, be it shopping from online stores or making accounts on social media. Not just that, the minors are entering into various agreements unknowingly and this is happening at rampant scale.
In the fast changing and the ever-growing society, the shelter that was provided to the minors through the law is now losing its actual purpose. In the present scenario, a lot of cyberspace exchange is happening around the globe and the minors constitute an important component of the digital world.
Having said all this, the conditions as per the law remains the same and today as well any contract including the digital contracts.
However, the problem arises in various aspects including:
- Competence to contract: Online, the competence can’t be validly tested.
- Age verification: This is another issue face online.
- Personal data infringement: when, as a user, a minor click on ‘I agree’, he allows the infringement of his data.
Not only this, there are several other issues in the E-Contracts. For example, Minors incur expenses online and then their parents or the guardians have to take the responsibility. So, even on the online platforms, the required level of maturity isn’t attained by the minors. Thus, Online Agreements by the minors are still not considered valid.
CONCLUSION
To conclude this article, it can be said that Minors are basically a class of individuals in a society that actually deserve certain safeguards and institutional protections. Under the concept of contract, the principle is adhered to and no contract entered into by a minor is considered valid in all circumstances. This is done, so that the minor doesn’t have to face the unwarranted consequences of such agreement. Not just the Indian Law, rather all the other countries have ensured the safety of the minors in such matters.
However, keeping in mind the changing world dynamics and the growing technological world, it has become imperative for the lawmakers and the government to look into this matter and try to implement certain laws that cover the agreements and contracts entered into by the minors on digital platforms. This has become an important issue because the chances of exploitation and abuse are more on the online platforms.
REFERENCES
- Dr. R. K. Bangia’s Contract-2 (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 8th edition, 2022)
- Avatar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 6th edition, 2016)
- Ipleaders:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-judgments-contract-minor/
- Lexpeeps:
[1] Indian Contract Act, 1872, Act 9, 1872
[2] Indian Majority Act, 1875, Act 9, 1875
[3] Mohori Bibi v. Dharma Das Ghose (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)
[4] Srikakulam Subramanyam V. Kurra Subba Rao (1948) 50 BomLR 646
[5] GENERAL AMERICAN INSURANCE V. MADANLAL SONULAL (1935) 37 BomLR 461
[6] Jagar Nath Singh V. Lalta Prasad (1909) ILR 31 All 21
[7] GADIGEPPA BIMAPPA METS V. BALANGOWDA BHIMANGOWDA (1931) 33 BomLR 1313
[8] Jagar Nath Singh V. Lalta Prasad (1909) ILR 31 All 21
[9] Khan Gul V. Lakha Singh (1928) ILR 9 Lah 701
[10] Suraj Narain V. Sukhu Ahir, AIR 1928 All 440
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
