RESTITUTION IN CASES OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT; LIABILITY FOR NECESSARIES SUPPLIED TO MINOR

ABSTRACT

In India, the tradition of forming agreements for various purposes has long been in practice from many years. However, the formal recognition of contracts occurred in 1872 with the introduction of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. While making a contract, certain conditions must be met for it to be valid. One of these conditions is that all parties involved must be legally able to enter into a contract. This means that minors, who are not considered legally competent, cannot make contracts on their own. This article explores two important ideas related to contracts made by minors: the Doctrine of Restitution and the responsibility of a minor’s estate for things needed by the minor. These concepts are crucial for protecting the rights of the other party in a contract with a minor.

KEYWORDS

Indian Contract Act, Indian Majority Act, contract, valid, minor, legally, restitution, binding, agreement, property, Doctrine of restitution.

INTRODUCTION

In India, a minor is anyone under 18 years old according to the law. The Indian Majority Act, 1875 defines a major as someone who is 18 years old or older. Minors are not permitted to enter into contracts under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Only individuals who are 18 years old or older can legally form contracts. Even if a minor turn 18 later, any contracts they made while underage cannot be enforced. These contracts are not considered illegal, but they are not legally binding.

The Doctrine of Restitution refers to returning lost or taken items to their rightful owner. According to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for an agreement to be considered a contract, there must be something exchanged, like money or goods. Section 65 of the Act deals with returning benefits received under a void agreement or contract[1]. However, if there was never an agreement or contract, this section does not apply.

This doctrine also applies to agreements made by minors. If a minor obtains something by lying about their age, they are required to return it if it can be traced. Minors can choose to cancel contracts they entered into, and if they do, they must return anything they received under the contract. This ensures fairness and prevents minors from taking advantage of their age to gain unfairly.

The rule of restitution in minor agreements aims to be fair while considering the special circumstances of minors. Minors are protected from making binding contracts due to their young age and lack of experience. However, the rule of restitution ensures that minors do not unfairly benefit from canceling contracts. It maintains honesty and fairness in business dealings while protecting minors from exploitation.

Under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, suppliers of necessaries to minors can seek reimbursement from the minor’s property. Necessaries include items essential for survival, such as food and clothing, as well as items required for the minor’s well-being. Suppliers can only seek reimbursement from the minor’s property, not from the minor personally. This ensures that minors are provided for while protecting them from undue financial responsibility.[2]

MEANING OF MINOR[3]

In our country, anyone below 18 years old is considered a minor according to the law. The Indian Majority Act, 1875 explains what being a major means, stating that a person becomes a major when they turn 18.

Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, minors are not allowed to make contracts. As per section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, if someone is an Indian citizen and below 18 years old, they’re classified as a minor. Under this rule, any agreement made by a minor is invalid. Minors aren’t legally capable of entering contracts. Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act specifies that parties entering into a contract must be competent, meaning they must be of sound mind, not disqualified by law, and not minors.[4]

According to the section 3 of The Majority Act, 1875, as updated by the Majority (Amendment) Act, 1999, states that anyone under 18 years old and living in India is a minor. So, when someone turns 18, they become a major.[5]

DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION[6]

Restitution means giving back what was lost or taken to the rightful owner. According to section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for an agreement to be a contract, there must be something given in exchange, like money or goods.

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 mainly talks about giving back benefits received under a void agreement or contract[7]. It says that if there was no agreement or contract, then the idea of giving back doesn’t apply. This rule is based on the principle of consideration, meaning you only give something if you get something in return.

This section applies when a void agreement is discovered later or when a contract becomes void later on. But it doesn’t apply if the contract was void from the start. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kujiu Collieries Limited v/s Jharkhand Mines Ltd[8], stated that if an agreement is found to be void later on, Section 65 applies, and the person who benefited must give back to the disadvantaged party.

RESTITUTION IN A MINOR’S AGREEMENT

The doctrine of restitution also applies to agreements made by minors. According to this rule, if a minor lies about their age to get something, they have to give it back, but only if it’s still possible to trace it. Basically, a minor’s contract can be canceled if they want. This means they can choose to follow through with it or cancel it. If they cancel it, they have to give back anything they received under the contract. For instance, if a minor buys something, they have to pay for it or return it to the seller. This doctrine in minor’s agreements is about being fair and just because a minor shouldn’t be allowed to cheat just because they’re young. It makes sense to allow for some recovery in minor’s agreements based on the idea of unfair benefit.

REASON BEHIND THIS DOCTRINE[9]

The rule of restitution in agreements involving minors aims to be fair and just while considering the special situation of minors and their legal responsibilities.

Minors are seen as unable to make binding contracts because of their young age and lack of experience. Because of this, the law lets minors cancel contracts they make, protecting them from making choices they might regret later or that aren’t good for them. This protection is about looking out for young people in our society.

But the rule of restitution makes sure minors don’t unfairly gain from canceling their contracts. If a minor gets things or services by lying about their age, it wouldn’t be fair for them to keep those things without giving something back to the other person. Restitution in this case stops minors from using their protected status to benefit at someone else expense.

Also, if minors could keep what they got by lying, it would make contracts less trustworthy and hurt business trust. Making minors give back what they got from canceled contracts helps keep honesty and fairness in business deals.

So, the rule of restitution in minor agreements tries to be fair to minors while also making sure everyone is treated fairly in contracts. It understands that minors are in a special situation in the legal system and wants to make sure they act responsibly and honestly when dealing with others.

APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION UNDER CONTRACT LAW[10]

In the case of Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose[11] from 1903, Dharmodas Ghose, who was underage, borrowed money from a lender named Brahmo Dutt by using his property as collateral. Even though Dutt’s lawyer knew Ghose was underage, they still went ahead with the deal. Ghose, with the help of his mother, sued Dutt, arguing that because he was underage, the mortgage was invalid. The lower court agreed with Ghose, and so did the High Court of Judicature at Fort William when Dutt appealed. Even though Dutt had passed away by the time the case reached the Privy Council, the council upheld the decision, stating that contracts made by minors are void. Therefore, Dutt’s heirs had to transfer the property back to Ghose, and the Doctrine of Restitution didn’t apply. This ruling was similar to another case, Leslie (R) Ltd. vs. Sheill (1903), where a minor misled a lender about their age, resulting in a similar outcome where the minor couldn’t be held responsible for returning the money.

In the Sadasiva Panda vs. Prajapati Panda[12] and another case, the defendant agreed to sell property to the plaintiff for Rs. 5000. The plaintiff gave Rs. 2600 as an advance and asked for the property’s ownership. The defendant took the money but sold the property to someone else. The plaintiff sued under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court decided that because the plaintiff paid an advance, the Doctrine of Restitution applied. Selling to someone else broke the contract and caused the plaintiff loss. So, the plaintiff could get their money back from the defendant.

In the case of S.M. Deshmukh vs. Ganesh Krishnaji Khare (1973)[13], the Bombay High Court ruled that the doctrine of restoration is founded on the idea that courts must ensure that their actions don’t harm or cause injustice to the parties involved in a case. The court has the responsibility and authority to grant restitution, meaning it can decide to restore things to their rightful state, based on what is fair and just for all parties involved.[14]

LIABILITY FOR THE NECESSARIES SUPPLIED

The Indian Contract Act of 1872 includes rules about beneficial contracts. One rule involves holding a minor’s property responsible if someone provides them with necessary items. According to this rule, if someone supplies necessaries to a minor or someone legally incompetent, the supplier can get reimbursed. Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act covers this[15]. It’s important to note that this rule doesn’t make the minor personally liable; instead, it holds their property responsible.

The Privy Council clarified in the Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh[16] case that minors cannot be held personally responsible, even if necessaries are supplied to them. Any liability falls on the minor’s property. Therefore, only those recognized as suppliers under the law can seek reimbursement from the minor’s property.

WHAT ARE NECESSARIES[17]

An essential point to consider is what qualifies as necessary. Necessities include things like food, clothing, and shelter, which are vital for survival. They also include items that a minor in similar circumstances would reasonably need. Determining what qualifies as necessary depends on the minor’s individual situation and circumstances at the time. Therefore, necessities are items suitable for the minor’s living conditions and genuine needs when sold and delivered.

Contracts made by a minor for trading purposes aren’t considered necessary and are not enforceable against them. However, it’s important to note that necessities can be provided to the minor’s spouse, children, or anyone else they are legally obligated to support. Even if the minor is wealthy, luxury items like diamonds are usually not considered necessities unless specifically required for the minor’s well-being.

Necessities extend beyond just food and clothing. They can include education in a trade, the arts, or intellectual, moral, and religious education. This broader view acknowledges that nurturing the mind is as important as supporting the body. Therefore, under certain circumstances, these forms of education can also be considered necessities. Additionally, what qualifies as necessities can depend on a person’s situation and needs at the time goods are actually delivered.

MINOR’S LIABILITY

Since a minor’s agreement is invalid from the start, they typically cannot be required to pay for products or services provided to them.

However, Section 68 of the law allows payment to be made to someone who provides ‘necessaries’ to a mentally ill person or a minor. This obligation to reimburse is recognized by law as a “quasi-contractual” obligation, not arising from a valid contract with the minor.[18]

For the minor’s estate to be held responsible, two conditions must be met:

The items provided must be reasonably necessary for the minor’s support given their circumstances.
The minor must not already have an adequate supply of these necessities.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 68[19]

Reimbursement is allowed when necessities are provided.
To an incapable person like a minor or someone mentally incapacitated.
To a dependent person obligated by law to provide for the incapable person, like the spouse or children.
The provided necessities must be suitable for the person’s circumstances.

In India, a minor’s consent isn’t needed for them to be responsible. This is because of its quasi-contractual nature, where the minor’s estate carries all responsibility. The legal requirement is that the minor compensates for received necessities. Some argue the liability is contractual since a contract for necessities is one type a minor might make.

So, in cases where necessaries are supplied to a minor, the law allows reimbursement to the supplier. While the minor isn’t personally held liable, their property is responsible for compensation. If the minor doesn’t own property, the supplier’s options are limited.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the legal framework surrounding minors and contracts in India is governed by statutes such as The Indian Contract Act of 1872 and The Indian Majority Act, 1875. According to these laws, individuals under the age of 18 are considered minors and are unable to enter into enforceable contracts. However, minors are not absolved of all responsibilities under the law, particularly concerning the Doctrine of Restitution and liability for necessaries supplied.

The Doctrine of Restitution, as established by Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, aims to ensure fairness in transactions involving minors. It allows minors to cancel contracts they entered into and requires them to return any benefits received, thus preventing them from unfairly benefiting from their protected status. This doctrine safeguards against dishonest practices while upholding the integrity of contractual agreements.

Moreover, the concept of liability for necessaries supplied, outlined in Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, holds minors’ property responsible for reimbursing suppliers of essential goods and services. While minors themselves are not personally liable, their estates are accountable for ensuring reimbursement if certain conditions are met. This provision seeks to balance the protection of minors with the legitimate interests of suppliers, ensuring that minors receive necessary support while preventing exploitation or abuse of their legal status.

In essence, the legal principles governing minors’ contracts in India prioritize fairness and equity. While minors are afforded protection from certain contractual obligations, they are not exempt from all responsibilities. The laws aim to strike a balance between safeguarding the interests of minors and maintaining the integrity of contractual relationships within society. Through the application of these doctrines, the legal system seeks to uphold justice and fairness for all parties involved in transactions with minors.

REFERENCES

Indian Majority Act, 1875, Act 9, 1875.
Indian Contract Act, 1872, Act 9, 1872.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/minor-meaning-minors-agreements-and-exception/amp/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/what-is-the-doctrine-of-restitution/
https://advocatetanwar.com/understanding-the-doctrine-of-restitution-in-cases-involving-minors/
https://lawcorner.in/doctrine-of-restitution-under-contract-law/
https://lawbhoomi.com/nature-and-effect-of-a-minors-agreement/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/contracts-and-the-doctrine-of-restitution-an-overview/
https://lawbhoomi.com/legal-status-and-rights-of-minor/

[1] Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 65,No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[2] Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 68,No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[3] GEEKSFORGEEKS, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/minor-meaning-minors-agreements-and-exception/amp/ (last visited Apr. 13,2024)

[4] LawBhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/legal-status-and-rights-of-minor/ (last visited Apr. 13,2024)

[5] Indian Majority Act, 1875,§ 3,No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1875 (India).

[6] Ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/what-is-the-doctrine-of-restitution/ (last visited Apr. 13,2024)

[7] Ibid 1

[8] Kujiu Collieries Limited v/s Jharkhand Mines Ltd, AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 1892

[9] advocate Anwar, https://advocatetanwar.com/understanding-the-doctrine-of-restitution-in-cases-involving-minors/ (last visited Apr. 13,2024)

[10] Lawcorner, https://lawcorner.in/doctrine-of-restitution-under-contract-law/ (last visited Apr. 14,2024)

[11] Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose, 1903 ILR 30 Cal 539(PC)

[12] Sadasiva Panda vs. Prajapati Panda, (2017) 03 OHC CK 0060

[13] S.M. Deshmukh vs. Ganesh Krishnaji Khare, (1974)76BOMLR405

[14] Ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/contracts-and-the-doctrine-of-restitution-an-overview/ (last visited Apr.14,2024)

[15] Ibid 2

[16] Ibid 11

[17] LawBhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/nature-and-effect-of-a-minors-agreement/ (last visited Apr. 14,2024)

[18] Ibid 2

[19] Ibid 2

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.