A Project On

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PLACE OF A MINOR UNDER

THE LAW OF CONTRACT
Being Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of M.B.A. Finance. For the Course

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT

Submitted by: Jyoti Bishnoi M.B.A- finance Semester- I Roll no. 322

Submitted to: Mrs.Sindhu Soman Faculty in Charge General Principles of Contract

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR JULY-NOV 2010 1

Table of Contents

S.NO 1. 2. 3. 4.

TOPIC Acknowledgment Introduction Capacity of a minor- general Nature of a minors agreement a) Position under Indian Law b) Position under English Law Effects of a minors agreement Ratification of a minors agreement Return of benefit secured by fraudulent minor a) English Law: Doctrine of Restitution b) Indian Law: compensation by a minor Minors liabilities for necessaries Beneficial contracts of service and apprenticeship a) English Law b) Indian Law Conclusion Bibliography

PAGE NO 3 4 5 5-6

5. 6. 7.

6 7 9-13

8. 9.

13-15 16

10. 11.

18 19

Acknowledgment
2

This project provides me great opportunity of learning new interesting areas of General Principles of Contract. At the same time I express my deep sense of gratitude towards Mrs. Sindhu Soman without whose guidance and help this project would not have been a success. I owe a sincere gratitude towards her for her untiring and instant academic and intellectual support and guidance. Without her assistance I would not have got the conceptual clarity. My thanks are also towards the Library of the University as, if they wouldnt have provided me with the data I would not have been able to complete the project. I sincerely hope that this project live up to her expectations.
JYOTI BISHNOI MBA-I (FINANCE) ROLL NO. 322

INTRODUCTION
One of the essentials of a valid contract, mentioned in Section 10, of The Indian Contract Act, 1972, is that the parties to the contract should be competent to make the contract.

SECTION 10: What agreements are contracts- All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India and not hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents. Section 11 describes the people who are competent to enter into a contract. According to Section 11: Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law which he is subject. Therefore a person who has not attained the age of majority is not competent to contract. The age of majority is generally eighteen, except when a guardian of a minors person or property has been appointed by the court, in which case it is twenty-one. The age of a person is to be determined according to the law to which he is subject.

CAPACITY OF A MINOR general

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor or a minor is one who has not attained the age which the law deems necessary to give him his full maturity of mind and below which he requires a special protection from the state. In the legal conception all children are under guardianship, directly by their parents or other legal guardian, and indirectly by the state. They are mentally incompetent through lack of experience and because of immaturity of mind, and therefore not legally competent to protect their own interests to the full extent. To afford them a protection to which the adult is not entitled, the 4

law qualifies their liability upon contract. Section 3 of The Indian Majority Act, 1875 provides about the age of majority. It states that a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in case a person of whose person or property a guardian has been appointed by the court, in which case the age of majority is 21 years. In such case the majority does not arise till the completion of 21 years of age by the ward, and it is immaterial, whether the guardian dies or is removed, or otherwise ceases to act. In England the age of majority is 18 years. The Indian Majority Act is being amended so as to make the age of majority as 18 years for every person, irrespective of the fact that in respect of them any guardian has been appointed.

NATURE OF A MINORS AGREEMENT

POSITION IN INDIA: The word void means void as against the minor. Contract with or by a minor is altogether void. The Act provides that a person who is a major is competent to contract. An agreement by a minor involves a promise on his part and he is incapable of giving a promise imposing a legal obligation. Therefore, the agreement with the minor is void ab initio. Section 10 requires that the parties to a contract must be competent and section 11 declares that a minor is not competent. But neither section makes it clear whether, if a minor enters into an agreement, it would be voidable at his option or altogether void. These provisions had, therefore, quite naturally given rise to a controversy about the nature of a minors agreement. The controversy was only resolved in 1903 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in their well known pronouncement in Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose.

CASE: Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose1 In this case a minor, Dharmodas Ghose has mortgaged his house in favor of B, Brahmo Dutt, who was a money lender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20000/- As part of this amount Rs. 10500/- was advanced to A, a minor by B. At the time of transaction, the attorney who acted on behalf of money-lender had the knowledge that the plaintiff, A, was a minor. A, the minor sued for the cancellation of the mortgage on the ground that he was minor when he executed the mortgage. It was held that mortgage was void and was cancelled. Privy Council which
1

(1903) 30 I.A. 114 (P.C)

decided the case held that the minors agreement is void. There is no question of refunding the amount. In this case B who advanced money was aware that A was minor. Court held that if A the minor is directed to refund the amount, and then this is tantamount to enforce an agreement which is void. POSITION UNDER ENGLISH LAW: According to the general rule at Common Law, the contract made by an infant was voidable at his option. The rule was modified by The Infants Relief Act, 1874, which declares the following three types of contracts as absolutely void: 1. Contracts for the repayment of money lent or to be lent. 2. Contracts for the supply of goods (other than necessaries). 3. Contracts for accounts stated. EFFECT OF MINORS AGREEMENT A minors agreement being void, ordinarily it should be wholly devoid of all effects. If there is no contract, there should, indeed, be no contractual obligations on either side. Consequently all the effects of a minors agreement must be worked out independently of any contract. NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST A MINOR When a minor misrepresents at the time of contract that he has attained the age of majority, the question which arises in such a case is, does the law of estoppels apply against him so as to prevent him from alleging that he was a minor when the contract was made? In other words can he be made liable on the agreement on the ground that since earlier he had asserted that he had attained majority, he should now be allowed to deny the same? According to the rule contained in Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, if a person makes a statement today which misleads another person, the first person is not allowed to deny the statement tomorrow when the question of his liability arises. SECTION 115: When one person has by his declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing.

CASE: in Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh2, the defendant, while still a minor, by fraudulently concealing his age, contracted to sell a plot of land to the plaintiff. He received the consideration of Rs 17,500 and then refused to perform his part of the bargain. The Lahore High Court held that the law of estoppels does not apply against a minor. The reason being, the law of estoppels, which is a rule of evidence, is a general law and this has to be read subject to the special law contained in the Indian Contract Act, according to which the agreement by a minor is void. From the various decisions of the different High Courts, it is found that the consensus is that the law of estoppels does not apply against a minor. He is allowed to plead minority as a defense to avoid liability under an agreement even though at the time of making the agreement, he falsely stated that he has attained the age of majority.

RATIFICATION OF MINORS AGREEMENT

A person cannot on attaining majority ratify an agreement made by him during his minority. Ratification relates back to the date of the making of the contract and, therefore, a contract which was then void cannot be made valid by subsequent ratification. If it is necessary, a fresh contract should be made on attaining majority and a new contract will also require a new consideration. In a case before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court the facts were:

CASE: In Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer3, a person borrowed some money during his minority and then made a fresh promise, after attaining majority, to pay that sum plus interest thereon. The question before the Allahabad High Court was, whether consideration received by a person during his minority can be good consideration for a fresh promise by him after attaining majority. It was held by a majority of 2:1, that the consideration received by a person during his minority could not be called consideration in its strict term within the meaning of Section 2(d), and there was no question of that consideration being considered valid for a fresh promise. The promiser, therefore could not be made liable in respect of such a promise.
2 3

A.I.R 1928 Lahore 609. A.I.R 1928 All. 440.

SECTION 2(d): When, at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such Act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise. It was also held by a majority of two as against one that suit upon the second bond was not maintainable, as that bond was without consideration and did not come under section 25(2) of the Contract Act. SECTION 25 (2): Agreement without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law- An agreement made without consideration is void, unless it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do. Where a person, after attaining majority has not only ratified but also paid the debt incurred by him during minority, he cannot afterwards recover it back. Where in addition to the consideration already given during minority, a further advance is made or a fresh consideration given after majority, a promise to pay whole of the amount, in the opinion of the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts, becomes binding.

RETURN OF BENEFIT SECURED BY A FRAUDULENT MINOR

ENGLISH LAW: THE DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION According to English Law, if a minor has obtained undue benefit in any transaction, he is required to restore back the benefit so received by him, under the equitable doctrine of restitution. Under the doctrine he is asked to restore back the exact things taken by him. It is applicable only to goods or property received by a minor so long as they can be traced, and are still in his possession. Since it is difficult to identify money and to prove whether it is the same money or different one, the doctrine does not apply to money. Even as regards goods or property, if the same have been consumed 8

or transferred and are no more traceable, the doctrine of restitution does not apply there. CASE: Leslie v. Sheill4 In this case, the defendant, a minor, falsely misrepresented himself to be major, and obtained two loans of 200 each from the plaintiffs, who were money-lenders. The plaintiffs brought an action to recover 475 being the amount of loan taken and interest thereon. It was held by the court of appeal that the money could not be recovered. If that were allowed, that would amount to enforcing the agreement to repay loan, which is void under the Infants Relief Act, 1874. The object of doctrine of restitution is to restore back the ill gotten gains taken by the minor, rather than enforcing the contract. If a minor is asked to pay money which cannot be traced and which he no more possesses, it would amount to enforcing the agreement. Where the question of repayment is there, the doctrine of restitution does not help, or as stated by Lord Sumner, Restitution stops where repayment begins. The doctrine of restitution has been explained by Lord Sumner in the following words. when an infant obtained an advantage by falsely stating himself to be of full age, equity required him to restore the ill gotten gains, or to release the party deceived from obligations or acts in law induced by the fraud, but scrupulously stopped short of enforcing against him a contractual obligation, entered into while he was an infant, even by means of a fraud.

INDIAN LAW: COMPENSATION BY A MINOR In England restitution, the restoring back of the property by a fraudulent minor is permitted, if the property can be traced. The question which has arisen in India is how far a minor can be asked to restore back the benefit wrongly obtained by him under a void agreement? In India, the question of compensation under the following two kinds of provisions has arisen before the Courts:1. Whether a minor can be asked to pay compensation under Sections 64 and 65, Indian Contract Act for the benefit obtained by him under a void agreement? 2. Whether a minor can be asked to pay compensation in view of the provisions contained in Sections 39 and 41, Specific Relief Act, 1877?

(1914) 3 K.B. 607.

I. Compensation under Sections 64, 65 and 70, Indian Contract Act: SECTION 64: Consequences of rescission of voidable contract- When a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other party thereto need not perform any promise therein contained in which he is promisor. The party rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he has received any benefit there under from another party to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as may be, to the person from whom it was received. SECTION 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. ILLUSTRATIONS a) A pays B 1,000 rupees in consideration of B's promising to marry C, A's daughter. C is dead at the time of the promise. The agreement is void, but B must repay A the 1,000 rupees. b) A contracts with B to deliver to him 250 maunds of rice before the first of May. A delivers 130 maunds only before that day, and none after. B retains the 130 maunds after the first of May. He is bound to pay A for them. c) A, a singer, contracts with B, the manager of a theatre, to sing at his theatre for two nights in every week during the next two months, and B engages to pay her a hundred rupees for each night's performance. On the sixth night, A willfully absents herself from the theatre, and B, in consequence, rescinds the contract. B must pay A for the five nights on which she had sung. The question, whether a minor can be asked to pay compensation to the other party, under Sections 64, and 65, Indian Contract Act had arisen in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose5. In this case, the Privy Council had held that the question of compensation under Sections 64 and 65, Indian Contract Act, arises where the parties are competent to contract and these provisions do not apply to the case of a minors agreement. The matter came for consideration before the Law Commission of India. The Law Commission disagreed with this interpretation put to Section 65 be allowed even if the invalidity of the agreement is because of the fact that a party is incompetent to contract. It has recommended that an Explanation be added to Section 65 to indicate that the Section is applicable where a minor enters into an agreement on the false representation that he is a major. In spite of the
5

(1903) 30 I.A. 114 (P.C)

10

above stated recommendation by the Law Commission, no amendment has been made in the Act so far. SECTION 70: Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act- Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. ILLUSTRATIONS a) A, a tradesman, leaves goods at B's house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. He is bound to pay A for them. b) A saves B's property from fire. A is not entitled to compensation from B, if the circumstances show that he intended to act gratuitously. The question which arises is: Can a minor who has enjoyed the benefit as contemplated under Section 70, be required to pay compensation under that provision? It has been held that Section 70 cannot be invoked against a minor. The minor is excluded from the operation of Section 70 for the reason that his case has been specifically provided for by Section 68. Besides, in the case of a minor, even the voluntary acceptance of the benefit of work done or thing delivered which is the foundation of the claim under Section 70 would not be present and so, on principle, that Section cannot be invoked against a minor. However the above stated interpretation is neither logical nor in consonance with the provision contained in Section 70 that deals with every person, which would include a minor and moreover, there is nothing in the Indian Contract Act, which prevents the case of a minor being covered both under Sections 68 and 70 of the act.

II. Compensation under specific relief act, 1963

Whether a fraudulent minor can be asked to pay compensation in view of provisions of Sections 39 and 41, Specific Relief Act, 1877, came in for consideration in some cases. SECTION 39: Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and 11

order it to be delivered up and cancelled. If the instrument has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908], the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation. ILLUSTRATIONS a) A conveys land to B, who bequeaths it to C and dies. Thereupon D gets possession of the land and produces a forged instrument stating that the conveyance was made to B in trust for him. C may obtain the cancellation of the forged instrument. SECTION 41: On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the Court may require the party to whom such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which justice may require. In Mohori Bibees case, the minor had applied for the cancellation of the mortgage deed, executed by him, under Section 39, Specific Relief Act and the Privy Council considered the question of compensation to be paid by him under Section 41 of that Act. It was held that since in this case the loan had been advanced to the minor with full knowledge of his minority, the question of payment of compensation to such a money-lender did not arise.

The present position in India can be summarized as under: 1. If a minor goes to the court as plaintiff for the cancellation of an instrument, the court may, on adjudging the cancellation, require such a minor, to restore the benefit and to make such compensation to the other party as justice may require. The object of the present provision is to restore the parties to their original position, as far as possible. 2. When the minor is the defendant in a case and he resists the enforcement of the suit on the ground that he is incompetent to contract, the court may ask him to restore such benefit to the other party, to the extent his estate has been benefitted thereby. Through this provision the parties are tried to be put to the pre-contract position. Moreover, compensation in terms of money is also permitted. In other words, it means that the rule of English Law laid down in Leslie v. Sheill is not applicable in India.

12

MINORS LIABILITIES FOR NECESSARIES SECTION 68

A minors agreement is void ab initio, and he is incapable of making a contract to pay for any services rendered or goods supplied to him. However, for the necessaries supplied to a minor, reimbursement is permitted to the person supplying such necessaries. This is not on the basis of any contract between the parties but because it is deemed to be a Quasi-contractual obligation. Chapter V of The Indian Contract Act recognizes certain relations resembling those created by contract i.e. Quasi- Contractual relations. Section 68 of The Contract Act provides for the liability for necessaries supplied to persons incompetent to contract. Section 68: claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on his account;-if a person, incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.

ILLUSTRATIONS a) A supplies B, a lunatic with necessaries suitable to his life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from Bs property. b) A supplies the wife and children of B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to their condition in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from Bs property.

MEANING OF NECESSARIES The liability is only for necessaries, but there is no definition of the term necessaries in the Act. According to Section 68, the necessaries supplied to minor should be suited to his condition in life. It 13

does not mean bare necessities of life, but means such things as may be necessary to maintain a person according to his condition in life. Things necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. In the first place, food, raiment, lodging and the like. Again as the as the proper cultivation of the mind is as expedient as the support of the body, instruction in art or trade, or intellectual, moral and religious education may be necessary also. Again man lives in a society, the assistance and attendance may be the subject of an infants contract. Then the classes being established, the subject and extent of the contract may vary according to the state and condition of the infant himself. In all the cases, it must first be made out that the class itself is one in which the things furnished are essential to the existence and of reasonable advantage and comfort of the infant contractor. Thus articles of mere luxury are always excluded, though luxurious articles of utility are in some cases allowed. Thus, necessaries is a relative fact to be determined with reference to the fortune and circumstances of the particular minor; articles, therefore, that to one person might be mere conveniences or matters of taste may, in the case of another be considered necessaries, where the usage of society renders them proper for a person in the rank of life in which the infant moves.

In Peters v. Fleming6 the court took judicial notice that it was prima facie not unreasonable that an undergraduate at a college should have a watch and consequently a watch chain; and that therefore it was a question of fact whether the watch chain supplied on credit was such as was necessary to support himself properly in his degree. CASE: In Ryder v. Wombwell7; W a minor with an income of 500 a year, bought from R a pair of crystal, ruby and diamond solitaires and an antique goblet in silver gilt. It was held that neither of these articles could be a necessary, even though W was the son of a deceased baronet and moved in the highest society. Other things may be of a useful character but the quality or quantity supplied may take them out of the character of necessaries.

6 7

(1840) 6 M & W 42: 9 LJ Ex 81 (1868) L.R. 3 Ex. 90. Affirmed (1869) L.R. 4 Ex. 32.

14

To render an infants estate liable for necessaries two conditions must be satisfied: 1. The contract must be for goods reasonably necessary for his support in his station in life, and 2. He must not have already a sufficient supply of these necessaries. The supplier has to prove, not only that the goods supplied were suitable to the condition in life of the infant, but he was not sufficiently supplied with the goods of that class. CASE: In Nash v. Inman8; A tailor supplied a Cambridge undergraduate with clothing which included 11 fancy waist-coats at 2 guineas each. It was proved that, although he was a minor, he had already a sufficient supply of clothing according to his position in life.

BENEFICIAL CONTRACTS OF SERVICE AND APPRENTICESHIP

POSITION IN ENGLAND: Under English law, an infant is bound by the contract of apprenticeship or services because such contracts are beneficial to him and held him in earning his livelihood. Contracts of apprenticeship stand on the same footing as the contract for necessaries. Contract for service or apprenticeship: An infant is not liable for every beneficial contract. The liability is only for contracts of service or apprenticeship. There is no liability for a trading contract. CASE: In Cowem v. Neild9, the defendant, an infant who was a trader in hay and straw, agreed to supply some clover and hay to the plaintiff. He received the payment from the plaintiff in advance but failed to supply the material. In an action against the infant defendant to recover back the price paid, it was held that even though the contract was beneficial to the defendant, he being an infant could not
8 9

(1908) 2 K.B. 1. (1912) 2 K.B. 412

15

be made liable for the same. Contracts analogous to those of service and apprenticeship: A minor is bound by beneficial contract of service or apprenticeship, or any contract analogous there. CASE: In Doyle v. White City Stadium Ltd10. The plaintiff who was an infant, applied for license as a boxer, stating as under: I hereby apply for a license as a boxer and if the license is granted to me, I declare to adhere strictly to the rules of the British Boxing Board (1929) as printed and abide by any further rule or alternations to the existing rules as may be passed. A license was duly granted to him and renewed thereafter. In accordance with the rules the plaintiff was disqualified in one of the contests for hitting below the belt and a sum of 300 due to him was withheld. The infant sued to recover that amount. It was held that the infants contract with the Board of Control was so closely connected with the contract of service that the same was binding against him and, therefore, he could not recover the amount.

POSITION IN INDIA: Unlike English Law, there are different rules in India for contract of service than those of apprenticeship. Minors contract of service is void whereas that of apprenticeship is valid. Contract of service: In India also, a contract of service entered into by a minor is void. CASE: Raj Rani v. Prem Adib11. The facts of the case are: The father of Raj Rani, who was a minor, entered into a contract on her behalf with Prem Adib, a film producer. According to the contract, Raj Rani was to act as a film actress in the defendants studio, on payment of a certain amount. Raj Rani was not given any work. She sued the producer, Prem Adib for the breach of contract. It was held that the plaintiff, being a minor, the contract was void. It was also observed that the contract of service entered into by the father on behalf of his minor daughter was void for another reason also, that is, the same was without any consideration because consideration moving from third party, who is a minor is no consideration. Contract of apprenticeship: Although Indian Law does not make a minor bound by the contract of
10 11

(1935) 1 K.B. 110. A.I.R 1949 Bom. 315

16

service, contracts of apprenticeship are binding under The Indian Apprenticeship Act, 1850. Since the contracts of apprenticeship are binding against the minor, such contracts could be validly entered into by a minors guardian on behalf of the minor. Contracts of Marriage: Contracts of marriage are supposed to be beneficial to minors and, therefore, a minor is entitled to enforce them. It is customary amongst most of the communities in India for parents to arrange marriages between their minor children and the law has to adapt itself to the habits and customs of the people. It has therefore become a well established, almost without any controversy, that while the contract of marriage could be enforced against the other contracting party at the instance of the minor it cannot be enforced against the minor. CASE: In Abdul Razak v. Mahomed Husein12, the Bombay High Court allowed an action against a Muslim father, who promised to give his minor daughter in marriage to the plaintiff, but subsequently there was breach of the contract. In this case, after the defendant agreed to give his minor daughter in marriage to the plaintiff, the plaintiff spent some amount in presenting ornaments and clothes to the defendants daughter and incurred certain other expenses in connection with the agreement of the marriage. On the breach of contract of marriage, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount from the defendant under Sections 65 and 73 of the Contract Act.

Conclusion

As per the Section 11, an individual with an age of majority can enter into a contract. The age of majority in England is fixed as 18 years, however in India the of majority is 18 years except in the case of a person of whose person or property a guardian has been appointed by the court, in which case the age of majority is 21 years. But The Indian Majority Act is being amended so as to make the age of majority as 18 years for every person, irrespective of the fact that in respect of them any guardian has been appointed. The Bill has been passes by both the Houses of Parliament but the Presidents assent has yet to be obtained. Contract with or by a minor is altogether void. An agreement by a minor involves a promise on his part and he is incapable of giving a promise imposing a legal obligation. Therefore, the agreement with the minor is void ab initio. So one must be aware of this fact before entering into an agreement with a
12

A.I.R. 1971 Bom. 61

17

minor. Moreover party to contract must also see to the fact that the other party being a minor is not misrepresenting to show it as age of majority and hence competent to contract. The law of Estoppels does not apply against minors. A minor is allowed to plead for minority as a defense to avoid liability under an agreement even though at the time of making an agreement, he falsely stated that he has attained the age of majority. A minor has to return the benefits secured fraudulently. It is applicable in case of property and goods received by a minor. As long as these things can be traced and are still in the possession of the minor then they are supposed to be returned to the owner, however in case of money it is difficult to identify money and to prove whether it is the same or different one, the doctrine of restitution does not apply. For the necessaries supplied to a minor, reimbursement is permitted to the person supplying such necessaries due to Quasi-contractual obligation mentioned in Section 68 on The Indian Contract Act. A minor is not liable for every beneficial contract. The liability is only for contracts of service or apprenticeship. In English law contract for service and apprenticeship both are void however in Indian Law, contract for apprenticeship is not void as against contract for service,

Bibliography

1. AVTAR SINGH-LAW OF CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF, 2005, 9th edition, published Eastern book company 2. BANGIA, R.K, Law of Contract- I, sixth edition, 2009- Allahabad law agency, Law Publishers 3. ANSONS Law of Contract

18

19