Minors

As per Indian law, the nature of minor’s agreement is that the agreement with a minor is null and void, meaning that it has no value in the eyes of the law and it cannot be enforced by either party in the contract. Minor is considered incompetent to contract under the Indian Contract Act.

Any person who is not of the age of majority is a minor. In India, 18 years is the age of majority. Below the age of 18 years does not have the capacity to enter into a contract. A contract or agreement with a minor is null from the beginning, and no one can sue them. The State provides the Minors with civil and criminal immunities. In addition to that, it takes custody of the well being and the property of the minor. These immunities do not let minors enter into a contract. But if a minor enters into a contract knowing his incapability, then such a contract shall work independently of any contract.

If a party is from India and another party from a foreign country, then there will be more than one law that will be applicable in the contract. In such cases, the TNS Firm v. Muhammad Hussain has set specific guidelines. The age of the majority for ordinary mercantile transactions will depend upon the law of the country where they make the contract. The age of the majority for land transactions will depend upon the law where the land is located.

Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose

1. The respondent, Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, had mortgaged his property in favor of the moneylender, Brahmo Dutt for securing a loan amounting to INR 20,000/-.
2. Mr. Brahmo Dutt had authorized Kedar Nath to enter into the transaction through a power of attorney. Mr. Kedar Nath was informed of the fact that Dharmodas Ghose was a minor through a letter sent by his mother.
3. However, the deed of mortgage contained a declaration that Dharmodas Ghose was of the age of majority.
4. The respondent’s mother brought a suit on the ground that the mortgage executed by his son is void on the ground that her son is a minor.
5. The relief sought by the respondent was granted and an appeal was preferred by the executors of Brahmo Dutt before the Calcutta high court. The same was dismissed.
6. An appeal was then made to the Privy council. The Privy council held that-
   1.  A contract with a minor is void-ab-initio.
   2. Sec.7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 states that a person competent to contract is competent to transfer a property.
   3. Hence, the mortgage executed by the respondent is void.

Effects of a Minor’s Agreement

if a minor enters into a contract by misrepresenting the age, then no one can stop him or her from disclosing their age. The minor is not liable for inducing another party into a contract. Even if any mishaps take place, he is not responsible. But in certain mishaps, he will be liable to it. The minor to avoid a contract can plead his infancy. An agreement of a minor stands as a doctrine of restitution. Whereas if a minor purchases a property by hiding his age, then the purchased property will be returned. But, if he has converted or sold them, then the law cannot sue him.

Contracts Beneficial to Minors

One can bring a minor into a contract if he is beneficiary for the contract. The minor does not have a restriction to be a promisee or payee in a contract. Thus a minor can purchase an immovable property and also can sue for the possessions upon the tender of the money. One cannot order a specific performance against a minor.

In certain instances, a contract entered into by the minor or by the minor’s guardian for his benefit is valid in the eyes of law-

1. A contract for marriage entered into by a minor/his guardian.
2. A partnership contract entered into with a minor admitting him to the benefits of a partnership. However, the minor cannot be held personally liable for the losses incurred.
3. A contract relating to the minor’s property entered into by his guardian if it is for the benefit of the minor.
4. A contract of apprenticeship with a minor.
5. A contract supplying the minors with goods and services necessary for life.

Websites such as YouTube expressly mention in their terms and conditions that any minor while using its services represents that he has the permission of his parent/ guardian to do so. Parents and guardians are held liable for the child’s activity on such websites.

Exception to general rule

For providing protection to a minor, his agreement is void. But there are certain exceptions as well.

• When minor has performed his obligation: In a contract, a minor can be a promisee but not a promisor. So if the minor has performed his part of the promise, but the other party hasn’t the minor being in the position of a promisee he can enforce the contract.
• A contract entered into by guardian of minor for his benefit: In that case, a minor can sue the other party when it does not perform its promise. In the case of Great American Insurance v. Madan Lal (1935) 37 BOMLR 461 the guardian on the behalf of her son entered into an insurance contract in respect of fire for the minor’s property. When the property was damaged and minor asked for the compensation, the insurer denied it by saying that a contract with a minor is a void one. But later the court held that this contract was enforceable, and he is liable to pay compensation.
• Contract of apprenticeship: Under the Indian Apprentices Act, 1850, a contract of apprentice entered by guardian on his behalf is binding on the minor.

Necessities supplied to a minor                                                                        

If a person is incapable of entering into a contract is supplied by another person with necessities of life, the person who has supplied is entitled to get reimbursement from the property of such incompetent person, including a child as well. But if the minor has no property of his own, then he cannot be bound to reimburse the other person.

THE MINOR’S CONTRACTS ACT 1987

A factor to consider in the legality of a contract is whether the parties are of the standing required by the law to make binding agreement. If a child in a playground agrees to sell one his toys, this would not normally be binding. The law requires a legal capacity to contract, and generally, adults over the age of 18 are said to have this, then it can said as the capacity to contract all four of these requirements are present, then there will normally be a binding contract. The final category of those protected by the law of contractual capacity, a minor is a person who is below 18, although recently as 1969, before the Family Law Reform Act was passed, a person under 21 was referred to as an ‘infant’.The above Act lowered the age of majority to 18 and introduced the term minor.

A somewhat paternalistic approach is taken in contract law, by restricting the minor’s capacity to contract. The aim then is to protect minors from their own inexperience and perhaps from unwise transactions, whilst not being too hard on any adult dealing fairly with a minor. A minor can enforce a contract against the other party, providing it is an adult, but there is a general presumption that contracts with minors are unenforceable. However, some contracts with a minor are valid, and therefore enforceable.

CONCLUSION-

The position of minor under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is to be concluded as that a minor cannot enter into a contract and the same would be void ab initio. The minor cannot on attaining majority rely on ratification of the contract made by him during his minority. The reason is that ratification relates back to the past when the person was still a minor thus, a contract that was void cannot be made legitimate subsequently. If it is necessary, a new contract can be made after attainment of the age of majority with a fresh consideration. Further, a minor’s agreement cannot be called for specific performance as it would result in performing a void agreement. However, a minor will be held liable only for the claim of necessaries