Minors are generally be called as infant under English law. Infants attain majority at the age of 21. There are three types of minor agreement as per common law:- (1) those for his necessaries, (2)those for his benefit and (3) other contracts. First two are valid while the third one is voidable. After this Act contracts made during infancy can’t be enforced through ratified, if there is no fresh consideration for ratification of liability by the minor. Sales of Goods Act defines necessaries as “goods suitable to the condition in life of such an infant or minor or other person and his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery”. In England the infant or minor is not bound because of competency to contract but for quasi ex contractu.
EFFECTS OF MINOR AGREEMENT
An agreement made by a minor is typically considered void, which means it should have no legal effects. If there is no valid contract,there should be no obligations arising from it. Therefore, the consequences of a minor’s agreement must be determined without considering any contractual obligations.
1 No estoppels against minor:-
If a minor misrepresents their age to induce someone into a contract, can they be prevented from revealing their true age in a subsequent litigation arising from the contract? This issue was once a matter of controversy but is now settled by a majority of legal authorities. It has been established that there is no such estoppel against the minor. The minor cannot be prevented from using the defense of infancy. This is because no estoppel can be applied against a statute. The law of contract aims to protect individuals below the age of majority from contractual obligations,and the doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to circumvent this policy. As stated by Beaumont CJ in a Bombay High Court case,”The court is of the opinion that if an infant falsely represents that he is of legal age and induces another party to enter into a contract,the infant is not estopped from pleading infancy in an action based on the contract.”
2- No liability in contract or in tort arising out of contract:-
A minor’s agreement is, of course, in principle devoid of all legal effects.”A minor is in law incapable of giving consent, and, there being no consent, there could be no change in the character” or status of the parties. In England it was laid down as early as 1665 in Johnson v Pye that “an infant who obtains a loan of money by falsely representing his age cannot be made to repay the amount of the loan in the form of damages for deceit”. The court pointed out that if infants were held liable on their contracts by means of actions in tort, all the infants of England would be ruined. Hence a minor cannot be held responsible for anything which would be an indirect way of enforcing his agreement. “You cannot convert a contract into a tort to enable you to sue an infant.” This principle has been generally followed in India. The Calcutta High Court, for example, refused to hold a minor liable in tort for money lent on a bond.” The court said: “If the tort is directly connected with the contract and is the means of effecting it and is a parcel of the same transaction, the minor is not liable in tort.”In Jennings v Rundall, on the other hand, where the defendant, an infant, had hired a horse to be ridden for a short journey and took iton a much longer journey, with the result that it was injured, the court held the defendant not liable upon the ground that the action was founded in contract and that the plaintiff could not turn what was in substance a claim in contract to one in tort.
