Skip to content

IAI Actuarial Core Principles · Business Management · Sources of Indian law and valid contracts

Priya, aged 15, inherits property. Her guardian, without any contract by Priya, arranges for a tutor, Mr Iyer, to teach her mathematics for school fees of Rs 30,000 after which Priya is to pay from her estate. Mr Iyer provides the tuition. Priya's estate later declines to pay, saying a minor cannot be bound. Which statement is correct under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

Mr Iyer can recover from Priya's property. Section 68 of the Contract Act allows reimbursement from the estate of a minor for necessaries suitable to her condition in life, such as education, although the minor is not personally liable, since her agreement is void.

  1. AMr Iyer can recover from Priya's property because necessaries were supplied to a person incapable of contracting, though Priya is not personally liableCorrect
  2. BMr Iyer can sue Priya personally for the full Rs 30,000 as a contractual debt
  3. CMr Iyer has no remedy because a minor's agreement is void and nothing can be recovered
  4. DMr Iyer can recover only if Priya ratifies the arrangement on attaining majority
  5. Mr Iyer can recover from the guardian personally only

Explanation

Section 68 lets a person who supplies necessaries suitable to the minor's condition in life claim reimbursement from the minor's property. Education suits her station. Priya is not personally liable, so option B is wrong. Ratification is not needed.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Sources of Indian law and valid contracts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Sources of Indian law and valid contractsFree diagnostic mock

More Sources of Indian law and valid contracts questions