MINOR’S AGREEMENT

Members of the Group:

Indranil Bhowmick
Ipsita Debnath
Jollymoni Handique
Jyoti Jain
Hitali
Case

Mir Sarwarjan v Fahkruddin Mohd

Chowdhury
 Facts of the case
Contract Made by the guardian on behalf of
the minor for purchase of immovable
property.
Terms and conditions of the contract not
fulfilled by the other party.
Minor fails to recover his possession from
the other party.
Minor sued the other party for a decree of
specific performance to recover possession.
Minor’s action was rejected by the court.
 Legal Principle
Section 10 of Contract Act requires parties to
contract
Section 11 defines persons who are competent
to contract
 A person who is
of the age of majority
of sound mind
not disqualified from
contracting.
The Act expressly provides that a person who
by reason of infancy is incompetent to contract
Decision of the Court

Itwas not within the competence either of

the manager of the minor’s estate or the
guardian of the minor, to bind the minor or
the minor’s estate by a contract.
As the minor was not bound by the
contract there was no mutuality.
Consequently the minor could not obtain
specific performance of the contract.
As a result his action was rejected by the
court.
1. Jennings Vs
Rundall

2. Burnard Vs
Haggis
Fact
1. An infant had hired a horse to
be ridden for a short journey and
took it on a much longer journey,
with the result that it was injured.
2. An infant borrowed a mare for
riding only. He lent it to one of his
friend who killed it.
PRINCIPLE
 No Liability in Contract or in Tort arising out
of Contract.
Decision of the Court
1. For the 1st case, the court held
the minor not liable
2. For the 2nd case, the court
held the minor liable.
EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION:
If an infant obtains property or goods by
misrepresenting his age, he can be
compelled to restore it but only so long as
the same is traceable in his posession.

Doctrine of restitution not

applicable when:

1)if infant has sold the goods or converted

them, he cannot be made to repay the
value of the goods.
2)if he has obtained cash instead of goods
 Leslie (R) Ltd v Sheill

Case explai ning the do ctri ne of

r es titu ti on
An infant succeeded in
deceiving some money lenders
by telling them a lie about his
age, and got them to lend him
₤400 ,on the faith of his being
an adult.

PLAINTIFF:money-lenders
DEFENDANT:minor
* The money-lenders failed in their
attempt to recover the principal and
interest as damages for fraud.
* So claimed return of the principal
under quasi contract.

JUDGEMENT:
Infants’relief act,1874 forbids the court
to allow,under the name of an implied
contract ,a proceeding to enforce part
of a contract,which the statute
declares to be wholly void.
Finally the money-lenders
relied upon the doctrine of
restitution, contending that
infant should be compellable in
equity to restore the money.

JUDGEMENT:
CONTENTION REJECTED .AS
THE MINOR MIGHT HAVE SPENT
THE MONEY AS HIS OWN; SO
THERE WAS NO CHANCE OF
TRACING IT AND HENCE NO
Suraj Narain And Sukhu
Ahir CASE
 A minor borrowed a sum of money
executing a simple bond for it, and
after attaining majority executed a
second bond in respect of the original
loan plus interest.
 LEGAL PRINCIPAL OR
RELEVANT AREA
Ratification
Ratification relates back to the
date of the making of the
contract.
A fresh contract should be made on
DECISION AREA
attaining majority and a new contract
will also require a fresh consideration.
If services are rendered to a minor
during his minority continued after he
attains majority , a promise to pay for
such services or amount as a whole
would be valid or enforceable.