In addition, the parties who concluded the contract may express their interest in entering into a new contract provided that the consideration for that new contract is new, since the previous consideration cannot be used again. There is no liability arising from a tort or contract: a minor is unable to consent and the nature of a minor`s agreement is void and unenforceable. An agreement, under section 2(e) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, is the agreement/acceptance of a proposal to perform or not perform an action, which usually involves some consideration. The following case highlights the solution of the issue under consideration: a minor cannot refuse a contract for something vital, nor can a contract with a minor be invalidated for necessary elements. The problem is to determine what is really needed. Examples of necessities would be food, clothing and shelter. In one example, a minor took out a mortgage on a house and then tried to get out of it. The court ruled that the house was necessary. Transportation to work to pay for the cost of living could also be seen as a necessary element. a court should find out.

This means that if an infant enters into a contract and incurs tort liability, he will be held liable for the offense, no. This means that the plaintiff cannot rely on the defendant`s (minor) lawsuit for the offense committed in order to be compensated for the breach of contract. For example – Mr. X (a minor) signs a contract with Mr. Y and rents a car for three days. During these three days, he sells the car. Mr. Y, after becoming aware of it, he filed a complaint with the court and sought compensation. As we have seen, Mr.

X no longer owns the car, so he is not asked to compensate for this. But if he had been the case that he still had the car and refused to return it, the doctrine of restitution would have applied. The case is therefore a little different in matters of tortious liability, a minor can be prosecuted and must pay compensation when it comes to committing criminal acts such as negligence or trespassing. Here are the legal principles established in this case: For example, if A, who is a minor, claims to be an adult and signs a contract to sell his father`s car in order to make money for his PlayStation with B, who is unaware of the fact that A is a minor and makes a deal. Later, A`s father learns of the contract; B angrily goes to court and asks the court for compensation. A, who is a minor, is not obliged to pay compensation to B and no legal forfeiture is imposed on him. The agreement with minors, as mentioned above, is void, so both parties to the contract are not obliged to provide all the effects of this agreement, regardless of the contract. A minor`s consent occurs when a minor enters into an agreement (which is void from the outset under the law). In the case of Kundan Bibi v.

Sree Narayan,[5] a minor enjoyed the benefits of a contract during his minor years and also after reaching the age of majority. The court concluded that the contract is valid because there is a valid consideration (after reaching the age of majority). In this case, the Privy Council announced the law that a minor`s contact or agreement is “completely invalid” and that it has been carefully applied and continues to evolve. Section 10(3) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines what constitutes a contract, while section 11(4) defines who is responsible for the contract. In summary, according to section 11 of the Indian Contracts Act, a minor cannot enter into a contract. After a productive debate, it was concluded that the minor`s agreement is void from the outset and is not questionable according to the minor`s will. This has many implications, but they are independent of the agreement, because a null contract can have no consequences. The case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose[5] covers the entire scope of minor agreements.

This case mainly concerns a contract with a minor or a contract with a minor. In India, an agreement or contract with a minor (a person under the age of 18 or under the age of 18) is invalid from the outset (invalid from the beginning). These rules and regulations are in effect because these people cannot enter into or accept contracts under the law. There is no such thing as ratification of a treaty on minors. If a person is a minor at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the contract is ineffective and void. After becoming of age, the minor is no longer able to repair the contract (the contract, if corrected, is no longer valid). In addition, if the contracting parties express an interest, they may enter into a new contract with the restriction that the consideration in the new contract is new, since the previous consideration cannot be used again. “Agreements with minors are null and void from the outset.” A contract concluded with a minor is considered null and void.

Any contract with a minor is invalid from the outset; Persons under the age of 18 are not able to enter into a contract, so any agreement entered into by a minor is invalid from the outset. For example – Mr X (a minor) enters into a contract with Mr. Y on October 20, 2019 (this contract is invalid) to sell him his car for a certain amount. The nullity of this contract is illegal, but if they wish, they can conclude a new contract as soon as Mr X is 18 years old, with a new consideration. Other implications are that the parents of a minor will not be held responsible if the child lies about his or her age, but they will be held liable if the minor entered into the contract with the consent of their parents. A minor cannot declare bankruptcy. A minor may not own, acquire or sell shares in a business, but an adult who is the minor`s guardian may do so on his or her behalf. Facts of the case – The plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghosh, pledged his property to the defendant, a money lender, when he was a minor. Counsel for the defendant was aware of the plaintiff`s age at the time. The claimant ultimately paid only Rs 8000 but refused to pay the remaining amount.

The applicant`s mother at that time was his next girlfriend (legal guardian); Therefore, he brought a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that, because he was a minor at the time the contract was concluded, he was not obligated by him. Not all agreements are contracts under section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act. [1] Only these contracts are agreements of parties who are legally able to enter into a contract. In addition, section 11[2] of the Indian Contracts Act defines the term “competent”, which consists of three elements: This research essay focuses on what a minor`s agreement is and its effects. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that a minor (under the age of 18) is not permitted to enter into a contract. .