CA Foundation · Business Laws · The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Rohan, aged 17, enters into a contract to buy a motorcycle from Sunil on credit and takes delivery. Later, on being sued for the price, Rohan pleads minority. Which statement is correct under the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
Rohan is not personally liable. A minor's agreement is void from the start, and only necessaries such as food, clothing or education can be recovered from a minor's property. A motorcycle is not a necessary, and the agreement does not become valid merely because Rohan later turns eighteen.
- ARohan is liable because the motorcycle is a necessary for a young person
- BRohan is liable to pay since he took delivery and benefited from the contract
- CRohan is not personally liable, as a minor's agreement is void ab initio, and a minor's property is liable only for necessaries suppliedCorrect
- DRohan is liable once he turns 18, because the agreement becomes valid on majority
Explanation
A minor's agreement is void ab initio, so it cannot be enforced against the minor. Only necessaries supplied to a minor can be recovered from the minor's property, and a motorcycle is ordinarily not a necessary. Option D is wrong because a void agreement cannot be validated by attaining majority.
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.