Rule of estoppel and minor

Hello, Greetings of the day!

Section 3 of the Maturity’s Act 1875 states that a minor to be a person who is under the age of 18years and the Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines that the parties entering into the contract should be major and must be of sound mind and enforceable by the law. In the case of Mohri Bibi vs Dharmodas Ghose, it was held that any contact with the minor or by any minor's agreement is void ab initio that is invalid from the very beginning. 
 

No, it does not gives a free pass, it totally depends upon the “knowledge”.The reason we don’t hold minors to contracts is that we don’t really expect them to know what are they doing in the business deals or contracts and this comes with knowledge as well as experience in that field. We can’t expect minors to be well aware of these concern in their age. The fact that they claimed to be older doesn’t change the reality.

Hope it helps

Regards,

Sneha Jaiswal

Hello, Greetings!

Additionally, I'd like to mention that Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872 explains the requirements of competency for entering into contracts. Individuals or entities can create contracts only if they meet these requirements. The very first such requirement is that of majority age. The rationale behind Section 11 is that all parties to a contract must be competent to understand their obligations. Since a mature mind is important for this purpose, the law prohibits agreement with minor parties. This is because minors would find it difficult to comprehend and fulfill their obligations. The reason we don’t hold minors to contracts is that we don’t really expect them to know what they are doing in business deals. The fact that they claimed to be older doesn’t change this reality. Hence, the law itself prohibits them from creating contracts.

Hope this helps 

Regards 

Ananya Gosain