by Minor’s agreement refers to any contract or agreement entered into by a person who has not yet reached the age of majority, which in India is 18 years (or 21 years if a guardian is appointed by the court). According to Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, only individuals who are of sound mind, not disqualified by law, and have attained the age of majority are competent to enter into a contract. This means a minor is legally incompetent to contract.
The landmark case Mohori Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) established that any agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio—that is, it is invalid from the beginning. Even if the minor falsely represents that they are of legal age, the contract remains void, as the doctrine of estoppel (which prevents a person from denying their earlier statements) does not apply to minors.
The law provides this protection because minors are considered incapable of fully understanding the legal consequences of a contract. Hence, they cannot be legally bound by promises or agreements they make. This principle prevents minors from being exploited or unfairly burdened by obligations they are not mature enough to handle.
However, it is important to note that while minors cannot be bound by agreements, they can still be the beneficiaries of contracts. For example, a minor can accept gifts, scholarships, or inheritances. Furthermore, under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, a minor is liable to repay the cost of “necessaries” supplied to them (such as food, shelter, and medical care), but only from their property—not personally.
Minor’s agreement means any contract involving a person under the legal age, which is considered void to protect the minor from legal liabilities, while still allowing them to benefit where appropriate.
Effects of Minor’s Agreement
- Void Ab Initio
One of the most important effects of a minor’s agreement is that it is considered void ab initio, meaning it is void from the very beginning. Even if the minor misrepresents their age, the contract cannot be enforced. This was firmly established in the famous case Mohori Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), where the court ruled that an agreement with a minor has no legal validity. This principle ensures that minors are protected from binding commitments they do not fully understand or cannot manage. Even if both parties fulfill part of the contract, the minor cannot be forced to continue or complete the obligations. This makes the contract fundamentally invalid, meaning no rights or duties arise from it against the minor.
- No Ratification on Attaining Majority
Another key effect is that a minor’s agreement cannot be ratified once the minor reaches the age of majority. Ratification refers to the formal approval or confirmation of a contract. Once the person turns 18 (or 21 in some cases), they cannot simply agree to the old contract to make it valid. They must form a new contract with fresh consideration if they wish to enter into the same terms. This prevents adults from being unfairly tied to obligations they made when they were legally incapable. Even a continued performance of the old agreement after attaining majority will not automatically validate the prior minor’s contract without clear and fresh intent to create a binding agreement.
- Doctrine of Estoppel Does Not Apply
In contract law, the doctrine of estoppel prevents a person from denying statements or actions they previously made if someone else relied on them. However, this doctrine does not apply to minors. Even if the minor misrepresents their age and convinces the other party to enter into a contract, the minor can later plead minority to escape liability. This protects minors from being unfairly bound due to their immaturity or lack of judgment. Adults dealing with minors must exercise caution, as the minor retains the right to deny the contract at any time, and courts will uphold this protection regardless of prior misrepresentations or promises.
- Minor Can Be a Beneficiary
While a minor cannot be bound by agreements, they can be the beneficiary under a contract. This means they can receive benefits such as gifts, scholarships, trust funds, or awards. The law permits this because receiving a benefit imposes no obligation on the minor, only advantages. For example, if someone promises to give a minor a sum of money or a property, the minor can accept and enforce this promise. The key distinction here is that minors cannot promise something in return or assume duties under a contract, but they can enjoy benefits where they are passive recipients, not active contracting parties.
- Liability for Necessaries Supplied
Under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, minors are liable to pay for “necessaries” supplied to them. Necessaries are defined as goods or services suitable to the minor’s condition in life, such as food, clothing, education, or medical care. However, this liability is not personal. Instead, payment is made from the minor’s property, if available. This rule balances fairness: it prevents suppliers from going unpaid while still protecting the minor from personal liability. Courts carefully assess what qualifies as necessaries, ensuring that only genuine needs essential for the minor’s survival or reasonable living are covered.
- No Specific Performance
Specific performance is a legal remedy where the court orders a party to fulfill their contractual promises. However, when it comes to minors’ agreements, specific performance cannot be enforced against the minor because the agreement itself is void. Courts will not compel a minor to perform a promise they were never legally capable of making. Even if the contract is partially performed, minors can withdraw without being forced to complete it. This shields them from long-term or burdensome obligations. However, if a minor fraudulently obtained property or money, courts may order them to return the property or pay compensation, but not under the framework of contract law.
- Contracts by Guardian on Minor’s Behalf
A guardian or legal representative can enter into contracts on behalf of the minor, provided the agreement is for the minor’s benefit. These contracts are valid and binding, especially regarding necessities, education, marriage, or property matters. Courts assess whether the guardian acted in the minor’s best interest, ensuring the minor’s welfare is prioritized. For example, a contract for selling minor’s property with court approval may be valid. However, if the guardian makes risky or harmful contracts, they can be challenged or invalidated. This safeguard ensures that minors’ interests are protected even when represented by adults.
- Restitution of Benefits
In some cases, if a minor has received benefits under a void contract, courts may order restitution — meaning the minor returns what they unjustly retained. This remedy is applied under principles of equity, not contract law. For example, if a minor fraudulently obtained a loan or property, they might be required to return it or its value to prevent unfair enrichment. However, the courts will ensure that the minor is not placed under a contractual obligation. This approach balances protecting the minor with preventing them from taking undue advantage of their legal immunity.
- Agreements of Continuous Nature
When a minor enters into continuous or long-term agreements, such as leases, agency, or employment contracts, these agreements are also void. The minor is free to walk away from these obligations at any time, and no damages or penalties can be imposed for breach. For example, if a minor rents a property but stops paying rent, the landlord cannot enforce the lease against the minor. However, if the minor occupied the property, they may have to pay reasonable compensation (not under the contract but under quasi-contract or restitution principles). This ensures minors are not locked into long-term commitments.
