Skip to content

CA Foundation · Business Laws · The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Neha, aged 16, is supplied with a tailor's services by Rakesh for her school wear. Separately, her father Vinod has no contract with Rakesh. Rakesh sues Neha, claiming the price Rs 3,000 for goods fit for her station in life. Which statement is correct?

Rakesh cannot sue Neha personally, but he can recover the price from her property if the goods were necessaries suited to her condition in life. A minor is never personally liable, and her father is not liable merely as a parent.

  1. ARakesh can sue Neha personally, because necessaries are charged on a minor's person
  2. BRakesh cannot sue Neha personally, but can recover from her property if the goods were necessariesCorrect
  3. CRakesh can recover from Vinod, since parents are always liable for a minor's contracts
  4. DRakesh cannot recover anything, because all supplies to minors are void

Explanation

For necessaries supplied to a minor, the supplier can be reimbursed from the minor's property, if any, but the minor is not personally liable. The parent is not liable merely for being a parent. Option A wrongly imposes personal liability.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on The Indian Contract Act, 1872 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise The Indian Contract Act, 1872Free diagnostic mock

More The Indian Contract Act, 1872 questions