The agreement of a minor, as set out in the Mohori Bibi case, is absolutely null and void. However, a contract in favour of a minor is enforceable. According to section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, “a person who is a minor under the law to which he is subject may not be a partner in a partnership, but with the consent of all the partners, he may be admitted for the time being to share the benefits of the partnership.” This can be done through an agreement with his tutor and other partners. Thus, the minor is only responsible for the services and not for the liabilities or debts of the company. A minor has the possibility to terminate the contract of this type within a reasonable time after reaching the age of 18. With the exception of an advantageous contract under the Indian Partnership Act, marriage contracts or marriage contracts for Muslim underage girls, apprenticeship contracts are all considered under advantageous contracts. However, some contracts cannot be cancelled. Specifically, a minor remains responsible for certain contractual obligations: as with contracts entered into by adults, minors must meet certain requirements before a contract is considered enforceable. The main requirement is to have the ability to enter into contracts. Contractual capacity is questionable in the treatment of minors, as it is assumed that a minor is not sufficiently capable of understanding and conveying issues related to contractual rights.

Accordingly, a person who deals with a minor does so at his own risk and subject to the minor`s right to terminate the contract. For example, A works for B, who has promised to provide pension benefits A if A works for B for 25 years. After being employed by B for 15 years, B informs A that pension benefits will now be half of the amount originally promised. A can enforce the original promise according to the theory of forfeiture of promissory notes, although A has not taken this into account. A can argue that A was induced and fulfilled this promise. Contracts that must be written: As already mentioned above, not all contracts must be in writing. However, some absolutely do, or they are questionable. According to the common law doctrine of “Statute of Fraud” codified in the General Obligations Act (GOB), contracts for the purchase of real estate (GOB § 5-703), contracts that cannot be performed in less than 1 year and contracts guaranteeing the debt of another (co-signatory) (GOB § 5-701), must all be in writing. It is important to understand that almost all forms of writing are acceptable. A handwritten contract for the purchase of real estate on a towel is acceptable if all the elements of a contract are fulfilled. The use of e-mail and SMS may also be permitted under §§ 5-701 (4) GOB. Facts of the case – plaintiff Dharmodas Ghosh pledged his property as a minor to the defendant, a money lender.

At that time, counsel for the defendant was aware of the plaintiff`s age. The plaintiff then paid only 8,000 rupees, but refused to pay the rest of the money. The plaintiff`s mother was his next girlfriend (legal guardian) at the time, so he filed a lawsuit against the defendant, saying he was a minor at the time of entering into a contract, so the contract is invalid, it is not bound by the same. The third type of contract with a minor, which can be binding or if a minor concludes an agreement on the debt continues. This is a permanent contract, such as . B the rental of accommodation. In this case, the contract is considered valid, unless the minor withdraws within a reasonable time before the age of 18. This leaves an arrangement workable for those dealing with a minor, but gives the minor the opportunity to “escape” if he later regrets his act. Acceptance by the target recipient (the person accepting an offer) is the unconditional acceptance of all the terms of the offer.

There must be a so-called “meeting of minds” between the contracting parties. This means that both parties understand which offer is accepted. Acceptance must be absolute and without deviation, i.e. acceptance in the “mirror image” of the offer. The acceptance must be communicated to the person making the offer. Silence is not synonymous with acceptance. The second type of contract that may be valid against a minor is the advantageous service contract, which often takes the form of a contract of employment, education or training for a minor. It is obviously of great economic importance that miners develop skills and in an environment that allows them to learn a profession or gainful activity and that they are able to conclude satisfactory employment contracts. With these contracts, the court considers that a punitive contract against a minor is unenforceable, but that if a contract is largely advantageous for the minor, it is binding, even if a single clause may not be to his advantage. .