09 Sep Agreement In Minor
Even if a minor mistakenly presents himself as a major and borrows or wins a contract, he could claim to be a minority. The rule of violation of the law does not apply to minor minors. He was able to beg his minority to defend him. A minor can never be a principal, since section 183 of the Indian Contract Act should be of legal age and in good health for anyone who can become a principal, and a minor is not compatible, nor can he employ an agent. However, a minor may become an agent in accordance with the provisions of article 184, but the principal is bound by the actions of the minor and, in this case, he would not be personally responsible. A court would not “force” any person (whether an adult or a minor) to perform a contract for personal services, since, for reasons of public policy, the parties should not be compelled to sue against their will in a personal relationship. Therefore, the only remedy is that of damages caused by a breach of contract. Facts – plaintiff Dharmodas Ghosh, when he was a minor, mortgaged his property from the defendant, a lender. At that time, the defendant`s lawyer was aware of the applicant`s age. The complainant subsequently paid only 8000 rupees, but refused to pay the rest of the money. The applicant`s mother was at that time his next friend (legal guardian), so he brought an action against the defendant and declared that he was a minor at the time the contract was concluded, so that the contract was not valid and he was not bound to it. Since any contract with minors, i.e. anyone under the age of 18, cannot be concluded, any minor agreement concluded is unregated from the outset (from the beginning).
However, more recently, the law uses the word “child” to refer to a minor previously designated as a minor. It is confusing because, in the general language, we would probably not refer to a 16- or 17-year-old. We continue to use the word “minor.” A minor is a person who has not reached the age of 18 and the majority for each contract is an essential condition precedent. Under Indian law, the miners` agreement is void, which means that it has absolutely no position in the eyes of the law. A contract with minors is therefore null and void, none of the parties being able to impose it. And even after the person has obtained a majority, he cannot ratify the same agreement. The difference is that a minor`s contract is null/void; A contract is therefore not illegal, because there is no legislation in this area. .