Who Is Competent To Contract State The Position Of Agreement By A Minor

Ratification of a minor`s contract: Ratification means consent to a previous contact concluded during the minority at a later date after reaching the age of majority. It refers to the date of conclusion of the contract. Since a minor`s contract is void, ratification cannot be considered an option, since the consideration granted during the minority is considered not to be a consideration at all. It cannot be made valid by subsequent ratification. A new contract can be entered into by a minor when he reaches the age of majority with a new consideration In India, the age of majority is regulated by the Indian Majority Act of 1875. According to section 3 of the Indian Majority Act 1875, an Indian citizen would have reached the age of eighteen. In the United States (the majority of states) and Great Britain, the age of majority is also 18. Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, any person who is of legal age under the Act to which he or she is subject is of legal age is of legal age and who is in good health and who is not disqualified from the contract by a law to which he or she is subject is eligible for the contract. The three criteria, namely age, solidity and disqualification, must be applied to determine whether or not a person is fit to contract.

This is summarized as follows: One factor to consider in the legality of a contract is whether the parties are in the position legally required to enter into a binding agreement. If a child agrees to sell one of their toys in a playground, this would not normally be binding. The law requires legal capacity to enter into contracts, and in general, adults over the age of 18 should have it, so it can be said that it is contractual capacity. [3] When these four requirements are met, there will normally be a binding contract. The last class of persons protected by the Reliability of Contracts Act is a person under the age of 18, although it was not until 1969, before the passage of the Family Law Reform Act, that a person under the age of 21 was referred to as an “infant”. The above-mentioned law lowered the age of majority to 18 and introduced the term minor. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 requires that the parties to an agreement be capable of contracting, and section 11 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that a minor is not competent. However, the law did not know whether an agreement reached by a minor was valid. The ambiguity related to the issue that, if a minor enters into an agreement, it is a countervailable contract that is voidable at the discretion of that minor; or if such an agreement is void from the outset. These provisions had given rise to controversy over the nature of the juvenile agreement, which was resolved in 1903 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in its well-known promulgation in Mohori Bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghosh (1903) 30IA 114. The decision eliminated the vagueness and concluded that the minor`s consent was absolutely null and void.

As Sir Lord NORTH pointed out: Under section 11 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, a person who has reached the age of majority would be fit to contract. The age of majority was specified in section 3 of the Indian Majority Act of 1875, that is, a person would reach the age of majority if he had completed eighteen years. But earlier in England, the age of majority was earlier twenty-one. Today, under the Family Law Reform Act 1969, a minor is a person under the age of eighteen. Previously, the minor was called an “infant”; but this law changed the term to “minor”. In Mohori Bibi`s landmark judgment, it was stated that a minor`s agreement is absolutely null and void, in England, the Infant`s Relief Act 1874 also declares the following categories of a minor`s agreement absolutely null and void if: The third type of contract with a minor that may be binding or if a minor enters into an agreement on the debt continues. . .

.