Capacity To Contract
Capacity To Contract
Capacity To Contract
e)Corporations(Artificial status)
65. Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract
that becomes void.—When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract
becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or
contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he
received it. —
33. Power to require benefit to be restored or compensation to be made when
instrument is cancelled or is successfully resisted as being void or voidable.—
(1) On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the court may
require the party to whom such relief is granted, to restore, so far
as may be any benefit which he may have received from the
other party and to make any compensation to him which justice
may require.
(2) Where a defendant successfully resists any suit on the ground
—
(a) that the instrument sought to be enforced against him in the
suit is voidable, the court may if the defendant has received any
benefit under the instrument from the other party, require him to
restore, so far as may be, such benefit to that party or to make
compensation for it;
(b) that the agreement sought to be enforced against him in the
suit is void by reason of his not having been competent to
contract under section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of
1872), the court may, if the defendant has received any benefit
under the agreement from the other party, require him to restore,
so far as may be, such benefit to that party, to the extent to
which he or his estate has benefited thereby.
2)No Estoppel against minor
3)No specific performance
4)Minor as partner and agent
Doctrine of restitution
Restitution stops where repayment begins
Johnson v Pye, 1665
A minor obtained a loan of 300 pounds by falsely representing his age. Held that he is not
liable for deceit and not to repay.
Leslie v Sheill 1914
A minor acquired a loan of 400 euros by falsely representing his age. Later they claimed
principle amount and interest as damages. Held that the contract with a minor is void ab
intio and cannot recover it.
Khangul v Lakha singh, 1928
Defendant, a minor, acquired an amount of 17500 by falsely representing his age. He
refused to give the plot of land as sale. Plaintiff sued the minor. Held that the contract with
the minor is void ab initio and consideration is refunded under section 41 of specific relief
act.
Ajudhia Prasad vs. Chandan lal,1937
A sum of money was borrowed by two mi ores who are more than 18 yrs but less than 21
yrs and concealed the fact that they have a guardian. Plaintiff claimed refund or the
property. Held that courts cannot enforce an void contract and amount can't be refunded.
Minor can be a promisee and beneficiary
Raj rani v. Prem adib
A minor was alloted a role by the defendant, producer in a movie. The agreement was with the
father. Later the produces removed the minor and placed another artist and terminated the
contract. Held that the contract with minor is a nullity and the father can't sue becoz there will
be no consideration.
Great American Insurance Ltd. V. Madanlal sonulal
X, a minor insured his goods with the insurance company. The goods were damaged. X filed a
suit. Company took aplea that person on whose behalf the goods were insured is a minor. Held
that plea is rejected and allowed to recover.
K. Balakrishnan v K.Kamalam, 2004
Mother executed a gift deed in favour of her son and daughter. Later cancelled and executed
another gift deed in favour of the daughter. Son filed a suit for cancellation of the deed and void.
Held that in a gift deed there is no need for acceptance from the minor and it can co vluded
from the conduct.
A minor contracted with undertakers to carry her dead husband funeral. Refused to pay due to
incapacity. Held that the contract is for pvt benefit and comes under necessaries and is liable to
pay the amount.
Nash v Inman 1908
A tailor applied 13 waistcoats to a minor who was an undergraduate. He refused to pay. Held
that these goods do not come under necessities and the contract is void ab initio.
Roberts v Gray 1913
Defendant, a minor agreed with plaintiff to go for world tour to play billiards game. The
plaintiff made the arrangements. The defendant repudiated the contract. Held that the amount is
recoverable since it amounts to necessaries.
Kedarnath v Ajudhia Prasad 1883
Held that money advanced to save the minors estate from execution sale amounts to
necessaries.
Shyam Charan Mal v Choudary Debya Singh
Pahraj, ILR 1894 21 cal 872
A minor was facing criminal prosecution for dacoity and court observed that the liberty of
minor being at stake, the money advanced to be considered as necessities.
Minor’s liability for torts Liable for negligence
Johnson v Pye, 1665
Homework
Tulshiram v Roopchand 2006
Raj rani v Prem Adib 1994
Peters v Flemings 1840
Campbell v Hooper 1855
Section 12
What is sound mind for the purpose of contracting