Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
This question consists of principles and facts. The principal may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: According to law, a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in the case of a person where a guardian of a minor’s person or property has been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or where the superintendence of a minor’s property is assumed by a Court of Wards. Indian law expressly forbids a minor from entering into a contract. Hence, any contract entered into by a minor is voidabinitio regardless of whether the other party was aware of his minority or not. Further, though a minor is not competent to contract, nothing in the Contract Act prevents him from making the other party bound to the minor.
Facts: Lal executed a promissory note in favour of Gurudutt, aged 16 years stating that he would pay Gurudutt a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs when he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of 18, Gurudutt demanded the amount from Lal, who refused to pay. Gurudutt wants to take legal action against Lal. Identify the most appropriate legal position from the following:
पर्याय
Gurudutt should not have entered into a contract with Lal when he was a minor.
Lal was not aware of the fact that Gurudutt was a minor.
Lal argues that as per the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Gurudutt can claim the money only after he attains the age of 21.
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.
Explanation:
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit. A minor by law is incompetent to contract but can accept a benefit on reaching maturity.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules:
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor's property the age of majority is twenty-one.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that (he minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged I8 that she should sell her land to him. Bandita's mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.
Chaaru is justified in challenging the sale transaction because:
Which law introduced the system of dyarchy in India during the British reign?
A contract is defined as an agreement enforceable by law, vide Section ____ of the Indian Contract Act.
The Law of Contract is nothing but ...............
To form a valid contract, there should be at least .............
.................. is made by words spoken.
The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): The parties to the contract must be competent to contract otherwise it will be a void contract.
Reason (R): All wagering agreements are void.
The speaker vote in the Lok Sabha is called
Which article provides for the office of the Attorney General of India?
Below question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorized to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B's presence, both A and B may be held liable.
Facts:
Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pump set to be used in Somu's farm. Such a pump set was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pump set and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pump set. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.
Proposed Decision:
(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
Suggested Reasons
i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed to Somu's benefit. Your decision with the reason.
