Capacity to Contract - Free MCQ Practice Test with solutions, CLAT PG Law

According to the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person is considered a minor if they have not reached the age of 18 years. This means:

• A person under 18 is not legally recognised as an adult.
• They cannot enter into contracts or make legal decisions independently.
• The age of majority is crucial for understanding legal rights and responsibilities.

Thus, the correct age that defines a minor under this law is 18 years.

"Necessaries" refer to goods suitable for an individual's condition in life, which varies from person to person. This can include items that maintain their standard of living, such as education-related expenses or necessary clothing.

A minor cannot ratify a contract made during their minority upon reaching adulthood because such contracts are void. This legal framework protects minors from being bound by agreements they were not competent to enter into.

Contracts of service entered into by minors are void and unenforceable. This legal position protects minors from being bound by agreements that may exploit their lack of understanding regarding employment and obligations.

Contracts made with an alien enemy during wartime are considered void. The law restricts such contracts to protect national interests during conflicts, ensuring that transactions do not occur with parties from hostile nations.

Individuals declared bankrupt are legally disqualified from entering into contracts until they are discharged by a court. This restriction is in place to prevent financially irresponsible behavior and to protect creditors.

Contracts entered into by minors are considered void ab initio, meaning they are invalid from the outset. This legal principle protects minors from being exploited in contractual agreements they do not fully comprehend.

A person of unsound mind can enter into valid contracts during their lucid intervals, meaning that if they are capable of understanding the terms and effects of the contract at that time, the agreement is legally binding.

Expenses related to education are considered necessaries for a minor and can be recovered under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act. Necessaries refer to items required for maintaining a person's standard of living, which can vary based on individual circumstances.

The doctrine of estoppel does not apply to minors, even if they misrepresent their age to induce another party into a contract. The legal framework aims to protect minors from being bound by their representations, recognizing their lack of capacity to contract.

The judgment in Mohoribibi v. Dharmodas Ghose established that minors are not legally liable for agreements they enter into, as these agreements are void. This reinforces the protective measures around minors in contractual situations.

Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act addresses the provision of necessaries to persons incapable of contracting, including minors. It allows suppliers to seek reimbursement from the minor's property for goods deemed necessary for their condition in life.

The doctrine of equitable restitution allows for minors to be compelled to return goods or property obtained through misrepresentation of age, as long as the items are traceable. However, this does not extend to monetary amounts that cannot be specifically identified.

For a contract to be valid under the Indian Contract Act, all parties involved must have the capacity to contract, which includes being of sound mind and of the age of majority. This ensures that individuals can understand the terms and implications of the agreement they are entering into.

The case that established that a minor cannot be forced to repay a loan acquired through false pretenses is: Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose

In this case, it was ruled that contracts made by minors are generally void, especially when the minor is misled or deceived.

This principle protects minors from being held accountable for obligations they entered into without full understanding.