Skip to main content

CAPACITY TO CONTRACT

 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT

BY NUPUR GARG

INTRODUCTION 

Contract it is done between two or more persons and it is enforceable by law. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, defines the capacity to contract of a person to be dependent on three aspects; attaining the age of majority, being of sound mind, and not disqualified from entering into a contract by any law that he is subject to.

Section 11 lays down three conditions which are to be fulfilled in order to form a valid contract:

  1. A person should have attained the age of majority as per the law of the country of which he is a citizen. In India, the age of majority is governed by the Indian Majority Act, 1875. As per Sec. 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, an Indian citizen is said to have attained the age of majority upon completion of eighteen years of age. However, if a person is below the age of 18 years and a guardian has been appointed for him, he shall attain majority at the age of 21 years.

  2. A person should be of sound mind at the time of entering into a contract.

As per Sec. 12 of the Act, a person can be said to be of sound mind when he can assess, understand his actions and realize the consequences of obligations imposed on him at the time of entering into a contract.

  1. A person should not be disqualified under any law to which he is subject.

PERSON WHO CANNOT ENTER INTO CONTRACT

  1. MINOR 

This term refers to a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Therefore, he is incompetent to contract as it is said that he is incapable to understand the nature of liabilities arising out of the agreement. Hence a contract with a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning) and cannot be enforced in a court of law. 

Whereas a minor can be a beneficiary to a contract which means that he cannot be a party to the contract but the benefit of the same can be extended towards him. 

Under certain circumstances, a guardian of a minor can enter into a valid contract on behalf of the minor. Such a contract, which the guardian enters into, for the benefit of the minor, can also be enforced by the minor.


  1. PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND 

This person is termed as lunatic or idiot who is not mentally fit in order to understand the nature of the agreement. But in case of lunatic if the person was of sound mind at the time of entering into the contract, then then it will be a valid contract otherwise void. 


  1. PERSON DISQUALIFIED BY LAW 

An alien enemy is the citizen of a country India is at war with. Any contracts made during the war period with an alien enemy are void. An Indian citizen residing in an alien enemy’s territory shall be treated as an alien enemy under the contract law. Contracts made before the war period either gets dissolved if they are against public policy or remain suspended and are revived after the war is over, provided they are not barred by limitation.

A convict cannot enter into a contract while he is serving his sentence. However, he regains his capacity to enter into a contract upon completion of his sentence.

Insolvent person who is declared as bankrupt or any proceedings have been filed in the court.


CASE LAWS

       Mohari Bibee v. Dharmadas Ghose [ILR (1903) 30 Cal]

In this case, the respondent was a minor who was the sole owner of an immovable property. His mother was the legal custodian. He misrepresented his age to a person and mortgaged his property. Later his mother clarified regarding his minority. But that person sought to enforce the contract of mortgage once he attained majority. The Calcutta High Court went on to hold that any contract entered into with a minor or an infant qualifies to be void-ab-initio. So, they held in the context of the case that the mortgage contract was void as it was entered into by the minor respondent.

Campbell v. Hooper [(1855) 3 Sm&G 153]

The mortgagee, in this case, obtained a decree to repay the debt. But there was evidence leading to a conclusion that the mortgagor was a lunatic at the time of entering the contract, and the mortgagee was unaware of the same. Under English Law, it was held that mere fact of lunacy cannot make a contract invalid, and if the other party had the knowledge of lunacy, then it would become voidable at the option of the lunatic. Thus, knowledge is an important factor under English Law.

CONCLUSION

Competency of parties to contract is one of the most important requirements to make an agreement valid and enforceable in a court of law. A contract made by a person who does not possess the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the contract is void ab initio. On the other hand, contracts with lunatics, people under the influence of the drug may/may not be void depending upon the circumstances surrounding the situation.

A person regains the legal capacity to contract upon removal of any of the disqualifications.

At the end, one point which comes to the notice is that though Indian Contract Law has its origin in the English Law, but the interpretation and the stands in both the countries differ on several aspects, as stated earlier. To be precise, English law is comparatively clearer than the Indian law, as what is to be interpreted is already codified and grey areas are not left to be filled through judicial decisions, as in India. Lastly, the English Common law proves to have a wider ambit as it deals with unsoundness under incapacity which even includes public corporations, minorities apart from intoxicated and mentally ill people.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree