The Contractual Capacity of a Minor and Adult - Essay Example

The consequence is that the basis of the action is hardly a contract. Its real foundation is an obligation that the law imposes on the infant to make a fair payment in respect of needs satisfied. In other words, the obligation arises re and not consensus” Fletcher Moulton L.J. Nash v. Inman, http://www.bcli.org/pages/publications/lrcreports/reports(html)/lrc26index.html


According to the Law of Contracts, in many ways, the contractual capacity of a minor differs from that of an adult. An individual below 18, who is legally a minor, according to Family Law Reforms Act, 1969, cannot enter into contracts easily, because they are grouped under valid, void, and voidable contracts and hence, they hold very little legal authenticity. Valid contracts cover necessities and this means, they have to pay for the necessities and are legally liable to do so, if the plaintiff could prove that the goods supplied are suitable for the minor’s station in life and are his actual requirements and here, necessities and luxuries are different and the terms should not be onerous and if the plaintiff has all these on his side, still he will get only a reasonable price and not a contractual one.

Minors are bound by beneficial contracts service, which is usually for their benefit, mainly termed as beneficial contracts and these include education, training, apprenticeship, and a Court can decide that a minor should go through these contracts, even if some of them are not beneficial for him at the time conflict. Sometimes over time circumstances might prove that a minor does not particularly need those benefits anymore. Even if the minor has entered into a contract willingly, Court might decide that it was not for his benefit. Minor could be liable if he breached a contract that was beneficial to him. But in all these cases, it has to be proved beyond doubt that the minor was not forced to enter into contracts. Still minor cannot be forced to pay installments even if the money was for his trade.

Under void contracts, according to the Minors Contract Act 1987, money lent or to be lent, goods supplies or to be supplied other than necessaries, and repayment of money lent or to be lent are all ruled in favor of minor and minor could not be held liable for any of the above even if the minor purposely hides his age to get the loan. But a criminal action against a minor in exceptional cases, is possible. The guarantee of an adult to a loan to a minor is held valid.

Under voidable contracts, these could be binding even on a minor unless repudiated by him, and they include contracts of continuing nature like Partnership agreements and permanent contracts that enable him to inherit property like land, buildings, company shares, marriage settlements, etc. Avoidance only has the effect of the minor ceasing to be liable to contractual obligations, and he might continue to be liable for obligations before avoidance, and unless there is a total failure of consideration, the minor might not be able to recover already paid money.

A minor cannot be sued under Tort unless it is purely beyond the scope of the contract. Law considers that minors are at a disadvantage because of their age and could be helpless in their dealings.

“Contract law provides special protection to minors. A contract can be defined as an agreement that the law will enforce. Read More