2nd December

The court will not compel any restitution by a minor if the other party was aware of his minority

The principle laid down in Mohiri Biwi v. Dharamadas is where the minor is charged with
obligation and the other party seeks to enforce those obligations.

A.T. Raghava Chariar vs O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar (1916) 31 MLJ 575 – The main
question involved was whether the mortgage executed in favour of the minor who was advanced
money is enforceable. The court held that the entire transaction was enforceable as he has
already executed his part of consideration.

Sharfat Ali v. Noor Mohammed – It was observed that the law doesn’t regard a minor as
incapable of accepting a benefit. The contracts that are beneficial for a minor and are entered into
on their behalf by the guardian are enforceable.

Generally, the contracts to earn a living or to obtain knowledge and skills for future enabling the
minor to profit him in future are generally considered as beneficial and enforceable.

Supply of necessaries

In English law, the contract for supply for necessaries are not voidable at the option of the minor.

English law classifies contracts as contracts of supply of necessaries, contract of employment,

Necessaries generally mean goods suitable to the condition in life and to his actual requirement.

Ryder v. Bomwell – Minor bough a crystal ruby and solitaire and refused to pay. It was held that
these articles would not be a necessity even if the minor was hailing from high society.

Nash v. Inman – A tailor supplied eleven fancy waistcoats to a minor, it was held that the tailor
failed to prove that the clothing was minor’s actual requirement at the time of sale and delivery
therefore the contract was void.
Necessity depends on the circumstances and the nature of goods supplied.

In India, supply of necessities is governed by Sec 68 which provides that if a person incapable of
contracting is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the
person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such
incapable persons.

Persons of unsound mind

In English law, he is competent to contract but he may avoid by satisfying the court that he was
incapable of understanding the contract at the time of making it. The position of a drunkard is
also the same.

In India an agreement of a person of unsound mind is absolutely void

Section 12 of ICA provides that a person is said to be of a sound mind for the purpose of
contracting if at the time when he entered into the contract, is capable of understanding it and
making a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interest. A person, usually, of unsound mind
may make a contract when he is of sound mind. Section 12 applies to a drunk or intoxicated
person also (illustration B).

4th December
Continued…

Chacko v. Mahadevan (2007 SC) – A sale deed was executed by a person suffering from
alcoholic psychosis which was proved by a medical certificate. The property was of high value
but was sold for a very less amount. The Supreme court directed for setting aside of the sale
deed.

Ratification

It is basically a formal consent or confirmation in which a previous agreement is confirmed or

Free Consent

Section 14 of the ICA defines free consent and it provides the factors vitiating free consent of the
parties which are as follows –

1) Coercion (15)
2) Undue Influence (16)
3) Fraud (17)
4) Misrepresentation (18)
5) Mistake (20, 21, 22)

Agreement caused by Coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation is voidable at the

Consent under mistake is void and it is not enforceable at the option of either party.

Coercion

Coercion is defined in Section 15 and it provides that consent is said to be caused by coercion by
following acts

1) Committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the IPC (Kidnapping, threat to
kill, intimidation etc)
2) Unlawful detention or threat to detain any property

Chikkam Ammiraju vs Chikkam Seshamma - In this case, a person induced his wife to execute a
release deed in favour of his brother and also threatened them to commit suicide if they refused.
It was held that threat to commit suicide is an act forbidden by the IPC and the release deed was
voidable at the option of the wife. It was also observed that an attempt to commit suicide is
punishable under the IPC and there is no punishment for suicide for the only reason that there is
nobody left to be punished. However, it is forbidden and we cannot say the act is not forbidden if
the act is not punishable.
Andhra Sugar Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh < Next class

Up corporative sugar cane v, west up sugar

It was held that statutary

Astley v. Reynolds – In this case a person pledged his property for twenty pounds and when he
went to redeem it the pledgee insisted on additional interest as the pledger. As in immediate need
of the goods, he paid extra interest and redeemed it. Later on, he sued to recover it back. The
defendant had extracted the extra amount by unlawfully detaining the property and therefore the
recovery was allowed.

Unseu Influence: A contract is said to be indued by undue influence when the relations between
the party are such that one person is able to dominate the will of the other and he uses it to obtain
unfair advantage. It generally means domination of weak minds by strongs.

Sub section 2 is a general provision which provides that a person is deemed to be in a dominant
position where he holds real or apparent authority over the other or stands in fiduciary
relationships or where he makes a contract with a person who is in mental or bodily distress and
his mental capacity is due to age illness or mental or bodily distress because such a
person can be easily persuaded to give consent to a contract which may be unfavourable to him

Manu sigh v, umma dutt pandey

A spiritual guru asked his devotee to give entire property to him to secure benefits in the next
world. It was held that guru exerted undue influence.

Rani annapurni v. swaminatha

A poor Hindu widow agreed to pay 100 percent rate of intest as she was in hurry to estd her right
to maintenance. It was observed that her consent was wishtiated by undue influe and rate of
interest was lowerd to 24 percent.

Raghunath Prasadh v. Raghu

Fraud

Shivkant Yadav v.

There was a miss declaration of income in the application for dealership of petroleum products
held that it is fraud

PC chako v.

Ensured underwent a surgery 4 years prior to the date of policy. He concealed this fact which
was active concealment which was important. Compensation was not awarded

Promise made without intention of performing it

Delhi development authority skipper const pvt ltd 2000 SC

A builder entered into a large number of booking which was nearly 3 times the number of
available units. He collected advance money as well.it was held to be fraud because he should
have known he wouldn’t be able to perform the contract with all of them

Any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent includes all kinds of
intentional cheating

Mere silence would not amount to fraud unless and until there is a duty to speak. It was observed
by the SC the duty to speak arises when one party is without any means of discovering the truth

Eg insurance contracts where the company knows nothing about the life and circumstances of the
insured and has to depend upon him for the disclosure which is why insurance contracts are
called contracts of good faith.

There was no fraud. It was observed that it was duty of the university to scutunize the form call
for verification in case of diubt and they also had all possible means to know the truth.
Misrepresentation

MISTAKE

Generally means belief in those things which doesn’t exist in reality/ it may also be called as an
arrounis belief.

Mistake is not defined in the act but its effect is mentioned in section 20 21 22/

Mistake provided in section 20 is mistake of fact and it says that when both the parties are under
mistake as to matter of fact essential for agreement the agreement is void. Mistake provided in
this section is bilateral mistake. The explanation of section 20 clarifies that an erroneous opinion
as to the value of things which forms the subject matter of the agreement is not deemend to be a
mistake as to the matter of fact

Couturier v. hastie

A consignment was shipped during journey it began to ferment and the ship master sold it
unaware of this fact the consiner entermed into a contract of sale an when the buyer failed to pay
the consiner sued him for money on the ground that the property and risk has already passed to
the buyer . it was held that the contract was unenforceable due to mistake because the goods
were sold