Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 131 views

    Arguments For Defendant (Amritam Shankar Yadav Roll-115) : Case Law: MR. Sharma V MR. Nitin

    Uploaded by

    shambhavi sinha
    MR. Sharma has filed a case against MR. Nitin. The defendant, Amritam Shankar yadav, provides arguments in defense. The key arguments are: 1) According to family law reforms, the age of majority is now 18, so Kamal is a minor and incompetent to enter contracts under Section 11, making the contract for a study table void. 2) A study table is not a "necessary" good for a minor based on case law definitions. Necessary goods must be suitable, affordable and address actual requirements. 3) Even if the table was necessary, Section 70 cannot create personal liability for the minor since contracts with minors are void. Liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arguments For Defendant (Amritam Shankar Yadav Roll-115) : Case Law: MR. Sharma V MR. Nitin

    Uploaded by

    shambhavi sinha
    131 views2 pages
    MR. Sharma has filed a case against MR. Nitin. The defendant, Amritam Shankar yadav, provides arguments in defense. The key arguments are: 1) According to family law reforms, the age of majority is now 18, so Kamal is a minor and incompetent to enter contracts under Section 11, making the contract for a study table void. 2) A study table is not a "necessary" good for a minor based on case law definitions. Necessary goods must be suitable, affordable and address actual requirements. 3) Even if the table was necessary, Section 70 cannot create personal liability for the minor since contracts with minors are void. Liability

    Original Description:

    free for scribd

    Original Title

    pandemic

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    MR. Sharma has filed a case against MR. Nitin. The defendant, Amritam Shankar yadav, provides arguments in defense. The key arguments are: 1) According to family law reforms, the age of majority is now 18, so Kamal is a minor and incompetent to enter contracts under Section 11, making the contract for a study table void. 2) A study table is not a "necessary" good for a minor based on case law definitions. Necessary goods must be suitable, affordable and address actual requirements. 3) Even if the table was necessary, Section 70 cannot create personal liability for the minor since contracts with minors are void. Liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    131 views2 pages

    Arguments For Defendant (Amritam Shankar Yadav Roll-115) : Case Law: MR. Sharma V MR. Nitin

    Uploaded by

    shambhavi sinha
    MR. Sharma has filed a case against MR. Nitin. The defendant, Amritam Shankar yadav, provides arguments in defense. The key arguments are: 1) According to family law reforms, the age of majority is now 18, so Kamal is a minor and incompetent to enter contracts under Section 11, making the contract for a study table void. 2) A study table is not a "necessary" good for a minor based on case law definitions. Necessary goods must be suitable, affordable and address actual requirements. 3) Even if the table was necessary, Section 70 cannot create personal liability for the minor since contracts with minors are void. Liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case law: MR. Sharma v MR.

    Nitin

    SUBMITTED BY:-
    Amritam Shankar yadav
    (Defendant
    SAP ID- 500071424
    ROLL NO.115).

    Arguments for Defendant (amritam Shankar yadav roll-115)


    Under the Family Law Reform Act, [xix] the age of majority was lowered from 21 to 18. [xx] Thus,
    Kamal is a minor and therefore is incompetent to contract under Section 11,[xxi] and thus the contract
    will be void ab initio. This counsel contends that the study table in question was not a “necessary”. The
    court is supposed to consider the character of the supplied goods, and the circumstances of the minor. As
    was held in the case Jagon Ram Marwari v. Mahadeo Prasad Sahu,[xxii] things mayabe a “necessary” to a
    minor, but the quality or quantity supplied may render them unnecessary. Objects though of real use, but
    excessively costly cannot be “necessaries”.[xxiii] A study table isanot a good which is quintessential to a
    high school student’s education. The seller (owns the burden of proof) has to prove that the goods
    supplied were suitable for the estate or station of a minor’s life, and that they were suitable to his actual
    requirements at the time, i.e., the minor had no supply from other sources.[xxiv] As has been already
    mentioned, and was is clearly evident in the factual matrix, in words of Defendant, buying the study table
    was “splurging money in buying unnecessary items.” Further, the table was in  no way quintessential to
    the minor’s academics. Furniture was held not be a “necessary” in the case  Stocks v. Wilson.[xxv]In
    arguendo, “a study table for 5000/- rupees” is excessively costly. In the case Ryder v. Wombwell, [xxvi] it
    wasaheld that though buttons are used in usual kind of clothing, and would constitute a “necessary”
    underanormal circumstances, the fact that the buttons in question were diamond buttons rendered them
    otherwise. Similarly, a furnished or lavish study table (which costs as much as 5000 rupees) cannot be a
    necessary, when several foldable and proper study tables are available for less than 1100 rupees.
    [xxvii] Even if one of these arguments is taken it would be sufficiently evident that the study table in
    question was not a “necessary”. Also, the counsel for Plaintiff failed to back its assertion that the minor
    had no supply from the other sources with evidence.
    Furthermore, in the case Amolakchand (Seth) v. Pralhadsingh ,[xxviii] the Indore bench of Madhya
    Pradesh High Court held that for Plaintiff to be entitled to compensation under a void contract Plaintiff
    should have not have had the knowledge that the contract was void ab initio, in case it is void ab
    initio and only then Section 65[xxix] would apply. The factual matrix clearly shows that it was not the
    case and Plaintiff had knowledge of the same before entering into the void contract. In arguendo, even if a
    study table is held to be “necessary” and minor’s estate is held liable for the same,[xxx]  Section
    70[xxxi] cannot be read so as to create any personal liability.[xxxii] It was held in Bankey Behari Prasad
    v. Mohendra Prasad[xxxiii] case that Section 70[xxxiv] is applied in contractual cases and a minor cannot
    be held liable under the same as a contract with a minor is void ab initio. Most importantly, as was held in
    the case Sadhu Laxmi Sunderamma v. Sadhu Suryanarayana, [xxxv] a claim lies only and only against the
    estate of a minor, and the father of the minor cannot be held liable. Only if the minor has hisaown estate,
    theaminoracan be held to be liable.

    You might also like