Contract Made by Minor is Void. Pikah Law

1. “A contract made by minor is void”. Explain A minor is a person who has not reached the age of majority, which is the age of majority are 21 years. The general rule is that all contracts entered into by a minor are void. The contractual incapacity of a minor is regarded as a protection of the minor against the consequences of its own actions and presumed lack of judgment in matters. In the Tan Hee Juan v. Teh Boon Keat applying the decision in Privy Council that established in the Mohori Bibee case agreed that contracts by a minor are void. In the case, Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose where the plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghose, while he was a minor, mortgaged his property in favor of the defendant, Brahmo Dutt, who was a money lender to secure a loan Rs. 20000. At the transaction the attorney of the defendant was fully aware that the plaintiff was incompetent to contract. Dharmodas paid only Rs. 8000 and refused to return the rest of the money. With his mother as a next friend, Dharmodas commenced an action again Brahmo Dutt, stating that at the time of contract that he was a minor, so the contract is void and he is not bound to return the money. The Court granted relief to the plaintiff. An Appeal was filled but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court. After this appeal Brahmo Dutt died. An Appeal was filed in the Calcutta High Court by his executors. The Age of Majority Act creates the exceptions to the rule that all contracts entered into by the minors are void. (a) The capacity of any person to acts in matters relating to marriage, divorce, dower and adoption. (b) The religion and religious rites and usages of any class of persons within Malaysia. (c) Any other written law fixing the age of majority. The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 applicable to non-muslim requires persons under 21 years to obtain the written consent of their parents or guardians. The main concern of this chapter is the age at which a person is capable of making a valid contract. In Rajeswary & Anor. Vs. Balakkrishnan & Ors (1958) it was held that a contract to marry entered into by a minor was not void. The parties to this action were Ceylonese Hindus. The second defendant, father of the first defendant, through a go between approached the second plaintiff father of the first plaintiff in order to arrange a marriage between his son and the second plaintiff’s daughter. After a few days, members of the families met and drew up written agreement with provisions for a dowry of RM3000 and RM5000 for breach of the agreement known as the penalty clause to effect the marriage. Next morning,the ceremony of NIchayartham, the customary manner to rectifying a betrothal was performed and at which the second plaintiff

presented the first defendant with a gold sovereign about two weeks later the second plaintiff also presented the first defendant with a shirt, a dhoti and a shawl and the first defendant in return presented the first plaintiff with a sari and a piece of material for making a blouse. Subsequently, the defendant repudiated his promise to marry the first plaintiff. After that, the first plaintiff claim damages against the first defendant for breach a promise of a marriage. The first defendant pleaded that the incapacity of the first plaintiff to enter into the contract to marry she being a minor. The marriage contracts entered into minors are different from other classes of contracts and it is does not within the principle that laid down in Mohori Bibee and the contract is valid. Under the section 69 of the Contracts Acts merely embodied the common law of England which as follows, "If a person, incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he is legally bound to support is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person." The law was stated by Chan Ming Tat J in Government of Malaysia v Gucharan Singh & Ors as follows, "An infant, like a lunatic, is incapable of making a contract of purchase in the strict sense of the word, but if a man satisfies the needs of the infant or lunatic by supplying to him necessaries, the law will imply an obligation to repay him for the services so rendered and will enforce that obligation against the estate of the infant or lunatic." For instance, Charles ,who are a minor has (a) been eating on credit in a certain restaurant (b) received a scholarship from the Goverment of Malaysia. (c) ordered 3 pieces of expensive suits for RM3,000 Charles must pay the restaurant for the food consumed because even though he is a minor, food is necessary to maintain himself. Sect 69 CA 1950 states, if a person is supplied with necessaries, he must pay for it. This principle was also stated in the English case of Nash v Inman. In this case, a minor, Inman ordered 11 waistcoats from a taylor and later refused to make payment. The Court held that the waistcoats were not necessaries to his station in life and therefore the contract was void. For

Charles to be made liable, it must be proven that the goods or services supplied were necessaries to his station in life. However there are exceptions to the general rule. On the facts of this case, Charles has received 3 piece suits for RM3,000. If this is a contract for necessaries, Charles will be bound by the contract. (S69 CA 1950, and the English case of Nash v Inman) There are 2 interpretations to necessaries. Literal interpretation implies the bare essentials of life. The legal interpretation includes the minors particular station in life. If Charles is the son of a prominent businessman, then the situation would be different, then Charles would be liable. If the legal interpretation is used, they can be considered as necessaries, because Charles is the son of a rich businessman and therefore he must pay for them. Scholarship agreement with the Government Of Malaysia. Sect 4(a) Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976 provides that scholarship agreement shall not be invalidated on the ground that the scholar entering into such agreement is not of the age of majority. In view of this section, Charles is bound by the contract and therefore he must repay the money received under the scholarship. This principle was also illustrated in the case of Government of Malaysia v Gucharan Singh. However there are situations in which the minor will be held accountable for contracts made in exceptional situations and will be binding on the person executing such a contract even though he may not meet the legal requirements.