What do you understand by Capacity to Contract?

Introduction to Capacity to Contract

The capacity to contract refers to the legal ability of individuals to enter into binding agreements or valid contract. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that parties must have the mental capacity and legal authority to understand the terms of a contract, consent to its provisions, and be held responsible for fulfilling their obligations.

Capacity is essential for ensuring that contracts are entered into freely and willingly, without any coercion, fraud, or undue influence. It serves as a safeguard to protect vulnerable individuals, such as minors, mentally impaired individuals, and those under the influence of drugs or alcohol, from being taken advantage of in contractual agreements.

Who are Competent to Contract?

According to Sec 11 of the Indian Contract Act,1872, every person: –

• who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject.
• who is of sound mind
• who is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.

In other Words, the minor, a person with Unsound mind, and a person who is disqualified from contracting does not have the capacity to contract.

Position of a Minor

Who is a Minor?

In Indian law, a minor refers to an individual who has not yet reached the age of majority. The age of majority in India is defined under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, which states that a person attains majority upon reaching the age of 18 years.

Under Indian law, a minor is generally considered to have limited capacity to contract. This means that contracts entered into by minors are usually voidable at their option, which gives them the right to repudiate or disaffirm the contract once they reach the age of majority. This protection is in place to safeguard minors from entering into agreements that they may not fully understand or that may be disadvantageous to them.

Nature of a Minor’s Agreement

The nature of a minor’s agreement refers to the legal status and characteristics of contracts entered into by individuals who are considered minors under the law. In general, a minor’s agreement is seen as voidable or unenforceable, meaning that the minor has the option to either affirm or disaffirm the contract upon reaching the age of majority.

Here are some key aspects of a minor’s agreement:

1. Voidable at the minor’s option: A minor can choose to either uphold or reject the contract once they come of age. They have the right to disaffirm the contract, which effectively nullifies their obligations under it. This provision exists to protect minors from entering into contracts that they may not fully understand or that may be detrimental to their interests.
2. Protection against unfair contracts: The law aims to safeguard minors from exploitation and unfair agreements. If a contract is found to be oppressive, disadvantageous, or against public policy, the court may be more inclined to support the minor’s disaffirmation of the contract.
3. Restitution: When a minor disaffirms a contract, they are typically required to restore the other party to the position they were in before the contract was entered into. This means returning any benefits or payments received under the contract, except for cases where the minor cannot return the goods or their condition has significantly changed.
4. Exceptions for necessaries: Contracts for essential goods, services, or other necessaries required for the minor’s well-being and support, such as food, clothing, and medical care, may be binding on the minor. The rationale behind this exception is to ensure that minors have access to basic necessities.

It’s important to note that laws regarding the nature of a minor’s agreement can vary between jurisdictions. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the specific laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction to understand the precise legal implications and protections for minors in contractual matters.

Case: – Mohiri Bibi V. Dharmodas Ghose

The case of Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose is a landmark legal case in Indian contract law that deals with the minor’s capacity to contract and the consequences of such an agreement. The case was heard by the Privy Council, the highest appellate court for British India, and the judgment was delivered on 23 February 1903.

Facts of the Case: Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property to secure a loan from his moneylender, Mohiri Bibi. Dharmodas Ghose subsequently reached the age of majority and filed a suit to set aside the mortgage, arguing that he was a minor at the time of entering into the contract and, therefore, it was voidable.

Court Proceedings and Judgment: The Privy Council examined the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which was in force at the time. Section 11 of the Act states that agreements made by minors are voidable at their option. However, Section 30 provides an exception, stating that if a minor falsely represents themselves as a major, they would be liable for the contract.

In this case, it was found that Dharmodas Ghose had not misrepresented his age, and the moneylender was aware that he was a minor at the time of the agreement. The Privy Council held that the contract was voidable, and Dharmodas Ghose had the right to repudiate the contract upon attaining majority.

The court further clarified that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply to minors. Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from denying or asserting something contrary to what they had previously stated or agreed upon. In this case, the court ruled that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to bind a minor to a contract they entered into during their minority.

The judgment emphasized the protective nature of the law concerning minors and the need to safeguard them from entering into contracts that may be disadvantageous. The court’s decision in Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose established that a contract entered into by a minor, without misrepresentation of their age, is voidable, and the minor has the right to disaffirm the contract upon attaining majority.

Significance of the Case: The case of Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose is significant as it established a clear legal precedent regarding the minor’s capacity to contract in India. It reinforced the principle that contracts with minors are voidable, providing protection to minors from unfair agreements. The judgment highlighted the importance of consent and understanding in contractual relationships and emphasized the need to balance the rights and interests of minors with the enforceability of contracts. The case continues to be cited as a guiding authority in Indian contract law, shaping the legal framework surrounding contracts involving minors.

Exceptions to Minor’s Agreement

Under Indian contract law, while a minor’s agreement is generally considered voidable at their option, there are certain exceptions where a minor may be bound by their contractual obligations. These exceptions recognize that certain transactions are necessary for the minor’s well-being or involve their basic necessities. Here are the key exceptions to a minor’s agreement:

1. Contracts for Necessaries: A minor can be held liable for contracts related to necessaries, which are goods or services essential for their support, health, or well-being. Examples of necessaries include food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, education, and other basic amenities required for the minor’s subsistence. These contracts are enforceable against the minor, even if they are below the age of majority, as they are deemed to be for their benefit.

It is important to note that what constitutes a necessary can vary depending on the minor’s social status, lifestyle, and specific circumstances. For instance, a luxury item may not be considered a necessary for a minor from a modest background.

2. Contracts of Apprenticeship: A contract of apprenticeship is another exception to a minor’s agreement. If a minor enters into a valid and reasonable contract of apprenticeship, they are generally bound by its terms. An apprenticeship contract is designed to provide the minor with vocational training, skill development, and educational opportunities. As long as the contract is fair and in the minor’s best interest, they cannot repudiate it upon reaching the age of majority.
3. Contracts Ratified After Attaining Majority: If a minor, after attaining the age of majority, expressly ratifies or affirms a contract that was entered into during their minority, the contract becomes binding on them. Ratification means that the person confirms the validity of the contract and accepts its terms and obligations. Once ratified, the contract is treated as if it were entered into when the person was of full age and capacity.

It’s important to note that the minor must make the ratification voluntarily and with full knowledge of their rights. It cannot be implied or assumed. Once ratified, the contract becomes irrevocable and enforceable against the individual.

4. Contracts of Marriage: Contract of marriage are supposed to be beneficial to minors and, therefore, a minor is entitled to enforce them.

Case:- Khimji Kuverji V. Lalji Karamsi

In the above cited case, the question before the Bombay High Court was, whether the contract of marriage of a minor girl entered into by her mother on her behalf with a major boy boy could be enforced and could she sue for the breach of contract. The question was answered in the affirmative and her action was allowed.

These exceptions recognize that certain transactions are necessary or beneficial for minors and aim to strike a balance between protecting their interests and ensuring fairness in contractual relationships. The exceptions allow minors to be bound by contracts that are essential for their well-being or that they choose to affirm upon reaching majority.

Position of a Person of Unsound Mind

The position of a person of unsound mind in forming a contract is an important aspect of contract law. It addresses the legal capacity and ability of individuals with mental impairments or unsoundness of mind to enter into binding contractual agreements. The principles surrounding contracts involving persons of unsound mind aim to balance the protection of vulnerable individuals with the enforceability of contracts. Here are some key points regarding the position of a person of unsound mind in forming a contract:

1. Lack of Capacity: A person of unsound mind lacks the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature, terms, and consequences of a contract. Their mental impairment may be due to mental illness, cognitive disability, senility, or any other condition that renders them incapable of comprehending the contractual obligations.
2. Voidable Contracts: Contracts entered into by a person of unsound mind are generally considered voidable at their option. This means that the person of unsound mind, or their legal representative, can choose to either affirm or repudiate the contract upon becoming aware of its terms and implications. The person of unsound mind has the right to avoid the contract if they can demonstrate that they lacked the necessary mental capacity at the time of entering into the agreement.
3. Guardian’s Consent: In some cases, a guardian or legal representative appointed by the court may have the authority to give consent on behalf of a person of unsound mind. If the contract is entered into with the guardian’s consent, it may be binding on the person of unsound mind.
4. Public Policy Considerations: The law recognizes the need to protect persons of unsound mind from exploitation and unfair contractual agreements. Courts often lean towards invalidating contracts involving individuals with unsound minds to prevent them from being taken advantage of due to their vulnerable state.
5. Restitution: If a contract is avoided due to the unsoundness of mind of one of the parties, the general principle is that restitution should be made to restore the parties to their original positions. This means that any benefits received under the contract should be returned or compensated for, subject to the condition that the person of unsound mind is capable of returning the benefits.

It’s important to note that the specific legal requirements and procedures regarding the position of a person of unsound mind in forming a contract may vary between jurisdictions. Laws regarding mental capacity and contracts can be complex and depend on various factors, such as the severity of the impairment, the nature of the agreement, and the specific legal framework in place. Consulting legal professionals or referring to the relevant laws and precedents in the respective jurisdiction is advisable for accurate and up-to-date information.

What is a Sound Mind?

Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, defines the term “sound mind” in relation to forming a contract. According to this section, a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time of making the contract, they are capable of understanding the terms and consequences of the agreement.

The section provides two specific conditions for a person to be considered of sound mind:

1. Understanding the Terms: The person must have the ability to comprehend and grasp the meaning and significance of the terms of the contract. They should be able to understand the rights, obligations, and implications associated with entering into the agreement. This requires a sufficient level of mental capacity to comprehend and evaluate the nature of the contract.
2. Understanding the Consequences: In addition to understanding the terms, the person must also possess the ability to appreciate the consequences of entering into the contract. They should have a reasonable understanding of the potential outcomes, risks, and benefits that may arise from the contractual relationship.

The determination of soundness of mind is made at the time of entering into the contract. It does not necessarily require the person to be of sound mind at all times but rather focuses on their mental capacity at the specific moment of contract formation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the capacity to contract is a fundamental principle in contract law that determines the legal ability of individuals to enter into binding agreements. It ensures that parties have the mental capacity and legal authority to understand and consent to the terms of a contract.

Minors, individuals of unsound mind, and those under the influence of drugs or alcohol are generally considered to have limited capacity to contract. Contracts entered into by these individuals may be voidable or unenforceable, except in certain exceptional circumstances such as contracts for necessaries or with the consent of a guardian.

The capacity to contract safeguards vulnerable individuals from being taken advantage of and promotes fairness in contractual relationships. It strikes a balance between protecting their interests and ensuring the enforceability of agreements.

It is important for parties to be aware of the legal requirements and exceptions pertaining to capacity in their respective jurisdictions to ensure the validity and enforceability of their contracts.

Reference: – Contract-1 by Dr. R.K.Bangia

FAQs