The Minor's Agreement & Its Effects — KSLU Contract 1 Notes

The Minor’s Agreement & Its Effects

flowchart TD
    A["Minor's agreement"]:::root
    A --> B["VOID ab initio<br/>(Mohori Bibee 1903)"]:::no
    A --> C["No estoppel — even if he<br/>lied about his age"]:::leaf
    A --> D["Cannot be ratified<br/>on majority"]:::leaf
    A --> E["Necessaries recoverable<br/>from his ESTATE (S.68)"]:::leaf
    A --> F["Limited restitution of<br/>identifiable benefits"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef no fill:#FFE6E6,stroke:#8A1E1E,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) settled that a minor’s agreement is void ab initio — not voidable. Consequences: no estoppel against a minor who misrepresented his age, no ratification on attaining majority, no specific performance; but necessaries supplied to him are recoverable from his property (not personally) under Section 68, and the court may order restitution of identifiable benefits still in his hands (Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh), though it will not enforce a money decree that indirectly enforces the void contract (Leslie v. Sheill). Sound mind (S.12) is judged at the time of contracting — a lucid-interval contract is valid; an agreement by an unsound person is void, with necessaries recoverable from his estate.