Skip to content

CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Capacity of Parties, Free Consent

Anita, a minor, was induced by Vikram's fraudulent statement to buy a flat. Vikram argues that Anita can only avoid the deal under Section 19. Which analysis is correct on the official text?

Anita's minority is a separate defect. Section 10 requires both competent parties and free consent, and Section 11 requires the age of majority. So the agreement can be challenged for incompetence regardless of fraud; Section 19 only adds a further ground.

  1. ASection 19 is the only ground, since fraud is the only defect
  2. BThe agreement is also open to challenge on the ground that Anita is not competent under Section 11, which Section 10 makes a precondition for a contract, independent of fraudCorrect
  3. CAnita must prove fraud, otherwise the contract is fully valid because minors are competent
  4. DSection 19 applies only to minors and not to adults

Explanation

Section 10 requires competent parties and free consent as separate conditions. Anita's minority defeats competence under Section 11 irrespective of fraud. Section 19 is an additional ground giving a voidability option where consent was caused by fraud. So she need not rely on fraud alone.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Capacity of Parties, Free Consent shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Capacity of Parties, Free ConsentFree diagnostic mock

More Capacity of Parties, Free Consent questions