Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

General definition of minor.

Minor is a person who has not attained the age of 18 years.


Introduction:-
One of the essential of a valid contract is that the parties to the contract must
be sound and major. Any person who is not a major is disqualified from
entering into contract because due to his immaturity he does not differentiate
between good and bad. Secondly if he is of unsound mind he can not make a
reasonable judgment of the subject matter in question. Therefore, contract
with a minor is void ib initio.

The claim in the paragraph as made by the shopkeeper against the girl
named Naheed of 5 years is minor and disqualified from entering into a
contract by law. Therefore, the claim of the shopkeeper against Naheed is
not maintainable under the law.
Another reason of the failure of shopkeeper claim is that the contract with
minor is void ib inito, so therefore it is not maintainable under any law.
For example:-
A a shopkeeper entered into a contract with B. B is a minor. B being a minor
does not know the consequences of his act because of his immaturity. So he
by reason of his immaturity is disqualified from entering into a contract.

Answer to the second question.

The answer of the second question can be given on the basis of


misrepresentation. U/S 18 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Definition( write it from the book on page No. 54.

There are two parties in the contract. The one is the seller and the other is the
buyer. The subject matter of the contract is the motor cycle. The seller
named Mr. Arif mentions the model, speed, paint, engine as well as the
general condition of the motorcycle.
So as for as the model is concerned it is a genuine question as to the nature
of the subject matter of the contract. The speed of a motorcycle in the
contract as of such a nature which can easily discovered through ordinary
diligence. The statement as to the paint of the motorcycle is just making of
opinion as to the motorcycle color. Making of opinion can not be included in
the definition of misrepresentation.
Here the buyer is induced by the seller named Mr.Arif that it is 1967 model
vespa. If the motorcycle model later on discovers by the buyer that it is not
vespa 1967 model but it is 1960. Then it is misrepresentation. The purchaser
has two remedies in such a case. The one is to avoid the contract as a whole.
The second remedy lied with him is to ask the seller to provide me vespa
model 1967.
For example:-
There are two parties in the contract, the subject matter of the contract is
motor cycle. Now in the contract one party named Mr.Arif is a seller and the
other is a buyer. The seller mentions some facts as to the nature of the
subject matter. The seller says that it is Vespa 1967 model, having speed like
bullet, passing an opinion/comment that its color is original and also says
that it engine is alright and also mentions that its general condition is
reasonable. In this case the buyer as a man of ordinary prudence can easily
know as the statement of the speed, paint but he can not easily know the
model of the motor cycle because the registration papers/documents are lost.
If later on it comes into the knowledge of the purchaser that it is not Vespa
1967 model. So this is misrepresentation on behalf of the seller.
The remedies available to the buyer are of two types. Either to avoid the
contract or to ask the seller to fulfill the contract as you promised.

The answer to the third question is.


In the third question there is a contract between the merchant and Mr.Arif.
the nature of contract is that the merchant shall be delivered goods by
Mr.Arif. Now Mr.Arif is not happy with the previous conduct of the
merchant. Therefore he has refused to deliver the goods to the merchant. The
merchant has reminded the date of the promise fulfillment. Now the question
is that whether the claim of the merchant against Mr.Arif will successful or
not?
The answer to the question is that the claim of the merchant shall not be
successful on the ground that the date is not yet expired so therefore, the
claim of the merchant shall not be entertained.
The reason is that every contract has provisions. e.g the date of the
performance of the contract, the conditions of the contract, the date of the
expiry of contract if it is continues contract, and any other condition in the
contract. Therefore, any party can not claim any right before the date of
performance and also before the fulfillment of any condition in the contract.
For example:-
A and B are parties to a contract. A says that I am offering you my house if
you want to accept. Then B says that I would accept the offer on the ground
that I will pay you the amount of the house after the expiration of six months
and A agrees to the condition of the B. Now if A comes to B before the
expiration of six months, his claim can not be entertained under the law
because there is a provision in the contract that Mr. B shall pay the amount
of the house after the expiration of six months.