Skip to content

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

Meera, a minor, owes a tailor ₹3,000 for suitable clothes supplied to her at home. The tailor claims payment. Which is the correct position as taught at this level?

The tailor cannot sue Meera personally because her agreement is void, but he can be reimbursed from her property if the clothes were necessaries suited to her condition in life. Parents are not personally liable merely because the buyer is their child.

  1. AThe tailor can sue Meera personally because the contract is valid for necessaries
  2. BThe tailor cannot sue Meera personally, but can claim from her property if the goods supplied were necessaries suited to her condition in lifeCorrect
  3. CThe tailor may recover nothing, since all supplies to a minor are void and unrecoverable
  4. DThe tailor can sue Meera's parents personally for the amount

Explanation

A minor's agreement is void so there is no personal liability. However, a person who supplies necessaries suited to the minor's condition in life can be reimbursed from the minor's property. The option denying all recovery ignores this rule, and parents are not personally liable merely because the minor is a child.

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