Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Capacity, Free Consent, Void and Voidable Agreements, Contingent and Quasi Contracts
What the exam tests
Capacity, consent and validity: who can contract, when consent is free, and whether an agreement is void or voidable. Contingent contracts and quasi-contracts are tested through short problem scenarios.
Core rules
- Section 11: a person is competent if of the age of majority, of sound mind, and not disqualified by law. A minor's agreement is void ab initio (Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose); no ratification after majority. A minor can be a beneficiary and can be supplied necessaries, with reimbursement from the minor's estate (s 68).
- Sound mind (s 12): capacity to understand the contract and form a rational judgment about its effect on interests.
- Free consent (s 14) requires absence of coercion (s 15), undue influence (s 16), fraud (s 17), misrepresentation (s 18) and mistake (ss 20-22). Coercion, fraud or misrepresentation generally make the contract voidable at the aggrieved party's option; bilateral mistake of fact makes it void.
- Void agreements (s 2(g)) are unenforceable from the start; voidable contracts (s 2(i)) are valid until avoided. Contingent contracts (ss 31-36) depend on a future uncertain event. Quasi-contracts (ss 68-72) impose restitutionary obligations without agreement.
Worked example
A, aged 17, borrows ₹1 lakh and gives a mortgage. The agreement is void. The lender cannot enforce the mortgage or sue on the promise, but may recover from A's estate for necessaries actually supplied. If A had fraudulently misrepresented age, the contract still does not become enforceable against A.
Traps
- Saying a minor can ratify on attaining majority.
- Confusing void and voidable.
- Treating every mistake as void; only essential fact and bilateral mistake generally.
- Forgetting that quasi-contract is not a true contract.