Our daily life is surrounded by agreements, whether we realize it or not. From breakfast to supper we make a number of agreements, irrespective of our ability to do so. For example, the transfer of property through sale, mortgage, lease, exchange, or gift, the formation of partnerships and companies, performing arbitration, mediation, negotiation and conciliation, registering patents, copyrights, intellectual properties, the execution of negotiable instruments, insurances and various services. When the agreement is made by a competent person then it is recognized and protected by law; while in the case of an incompetent party (particularly a minor) it lacks such recognition and protection by law (vide sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872). A minor's agreement stands void ab initio (Mohiri Bibee, 1903 PC), hence a minor is discharged from the contractual obligations. But under several laws, such as the TPA, the Sales of Goods Act, the Partnership Act, the Companies Act and the Insurance Laws etc. a minor is allowed to be a beneficiary through the contract created thereunder. Though the Indian Contract Act, 1872, does not allow a minor directly to be a beneficiary, even through judicial pronouncements, this gap has been filled. On the contrary the situation is not clear where this minor is fraudulent. Accordingly the consequence of a minor's agreement in terms of nature and effects is not clear under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, or under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This legislative gap under the Act of 1872was what attracted to the author to do the analytical research deploying doctrinal research methodology applying null hypothesis. This article has been divided into sections. Under section 2 the formal introduction of agreement and contract is discussed with its essentials, section 3 concerns the legislative gap pertaining to the consequences of a minor's agreement, section 4 examines the fulfilment of the legislative gap through judicial pronouncement and section 5 contains the conclusion with suggestions.
Business Law Review