The Enforceability of Agreements Made by Minors

Picture a 17-year-old signing up for an expensive online course, or borrowing money from a friend to buy a smartphone. Can the seller or the lender legally force them to pay? Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the answer is a firm no. Agreements made by minors occupy a unique space in contract law, one that prioritises protection over enforceability. Understanding this area is essential for any Business Law student, because it tests how well you can distinguish between a void agreement, a voidable contract, and the narrow exceptions carved out for fairness.

Why minors cannot form a valid contract 🔗

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act lays down three conditions for contractual capacity: the person must have attained the age of majority, must be of sound mind, and must not be disqualified by any law they are subject to. A minor fails the very first test. As per the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person is treated as a minor until they complete 18 years, though this extends to 21 years if a court has appointed a guardian over their person or property.

Because a minor cannot satisfy Section 11, any agreement they enter is not merely difficult to enforce. It is treated as if it never legally existed.

Void ab initio: the rule laid down in Mohori Bibee 🔗

The foundational authority here is the 1903 Privy Council decision in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property to secure a loan from a moneylender, Brahmo Dutt. His mother, acting as his legal guardian, had already informed Dutt’s attorney in writing about his minority, yet the transaction went ahead anyway. When Dharmodas later sought to have the mortgage set aside, the case reached the Privy Council, which had to settle a fundamental question: is an agreement with a minor merely voidable, or is it void from the very start?

The Privy Council held that the agreement was void ab initio, meaning it had no legal existence from the moment it was made. This is different from a voidable contract, which is valid until one party chooses to cancel it. A void agreement, by contrast, creates no rights and no obligations for either side, right from day one.

The court also rejected two arguments raised by the moneylender. First, it refused to apply the doctrine of estoppel against the minor, since Dutt’s own representative already knew about his age. Second, it ruled that Sections 64 and 65 of the Contract Act, which deal with restitution when a contract is rescinded, could not apply here either, because those sections presume a valid contract existed between competent parties in the first place. Since Dharmodas was never competent to contract, there was nothing to rescind.

This principle still holds today. Section 11 of the Contract Act continues to treat minors as incompetent, and courts consistently cite Mohori Bibee whenever the validity of a minor’s agreement is disputed.

Void versus voidable: why the distinction matters 🔗

Students often confuse “void” with “voidable,” but the difference has real consequences.

Misrepresentation of age does not change anything 🔗

A common exam trap is this: what if the minor lied about their age to get the other party to agree? Logic might suggest the minor should be held to the bargain, since they caused the deception. Indian courts have taken a different view. Even where a minor misrepresents their age, the agreement remains void, and the doctrine of estoppel does not apply against them. The reasoning is practical: allowing estoppel to defeat the plea of minority would let clever drafting undo the entire protective purpose of Section 11. A person dealing with someone who looks young has a duty to verify their age before contracting; the law will not reward carelessness at a minor’s expense.

Minors can still accept benefits 🔗

Incompetence to contract does not mean a minor is shut out of every transaction. The law distinguishes between binding a minor to an obligation and allowing a minor to receive a benefit. A minor can validly be a payee, endorsee, or promisee under an instrument or agreement. In other words, nothing stops a minor from being on the receiving end of a favourable transaction, such as being named as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy or holding a savings account in their name. What a minor cannot do is bind themselves to perform obligations, or be sued for non-performance. Such contracts can be enforced only at the minor’s option, never at the other party’s insistence.

Practical examples students should know 🔗

• Bank accounts: A minor can hold a savings account and receive interest, but cannot be held liable if they overdraw without authorisation.
• Scholarships and gifts: A minor can accept a scholarship, gift, or property transfer that only benefits them.
• Promissory notes in their favour: A minor can be the payee of a promissory note and can sue to recover the amount, even though they could never be sued as the maker of one.

Liability for necessaries: property, not the person 🔗

Even though a minor cannot be personally bound by a contract, the law recognises that minors still need food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care. Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act addresses this gap. It states that if a person incapable of contracting, or someone they are legally bound to support, is supplied with necessaries suited to their condition in life, the supplier is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of that incapable person.

Three points are worth remembering here:

• No personal liability: The minor is never personally liable for the price of necessaries. Only their property or estate can be used for reimbursement.
• Burden of proof: The supplier must show that the goods or services were genuinely necessary and suited to the minor’s actual status and lifestyle, not merely convenient or desirable.
• Meaning of necessaries: Courts have interpreted this broadly to include not just food and clothing, but also education, medical treatment, and even, in some cases, training or instruction connected to the minor’s livelihood.

If a minor has no property, a supplier of necessaries simply has no remedy. The reimbursement is a quasi-contractual claim against assets, not a debt the minor is personally answerable for.

No ratification on attaining majority 🔗

Another rule that trips up students is the question of ratification. Once a minor turns 18, can they confirm or “adopt” an agreement made while they were still a minor, making it binding? The answer, again, is no. Since the original agreement was void ab initio, there was nothing valid in existence to confirm. A void agreement cannot be revived by later approval, because you cannot ratify something that never had legal life to begin with.

If the parties genuinely want to continue their arrangement after the individual turns 18, they must create an entirely new contract, supported by fresh consideration. Consideration that passed during the person’s minority cannot simply be carried forward and reused to support the new agreement. Indian courts have repeatedly confirmed this: a promise made after attaining majority is enforceable only if it independently satisfies every requirement of a valid contract under Section 10, including fresh consideration.

Why the law is designed this way 🔗

Some students ask whether this framework is unfair to businesses and lenders who deal with minors in good faith. The policy rationale is that minors, by virtue of age, may not yet have the judgment or experience to protect their own interests in a negotiation. Rather than asking courts to evaluate the fairness of every individual transaction after the fact, the law draws a bright line: no contractual capacity below the age of majority, full stop. The trade-off is that adults dealing with minors bear the responsibility of verifying age and, where necessary, protecting themselves through guardians or other safeguards, rather than relying on the minor to honour the bargain.

Putting it all together 🔗

To summarise the position of agreements by a minor under Indian law:

• Every agreement by a minor is void ab initio, not merely voidable.
• Misrepresenting age does not create liability or trigger estoppel against the minor.
• A minor can accept benefits and act as a payee, promisee, or endorsee.
• A minor’s property, though not the minor personally, can be used to reimburse suppliers of necessaries under Section 68.
• A void agreement cannot be ratified upon attaining majority; a fresh contract with new consideration is required.

What do you think? If a minor’s agreement is void from the start, should the law still hold their guardians accountable when a minor misuses a loan or purchase? And does treating every person under 18 identically make sense, given how differently a 10-year-old and a 17-year-old might understand a transaction?

References

1. https://thelaw.institute/business-law-as-applicable-to-co-operative-i/minors-agreements-legal-status-indian-contract-act/
2. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/indian-contract-act/mohori-bibee-v-dharmodas-ghose-1903-30-i-a-114
3. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/06/cases-that-made-law-minor-entering-into-binding-contract-mohori-bibee-dharmodas-ghose-explained/
4. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/mohiri-bibee-minor/
5. https://ibclaw.in/section-68-of-indian-contract-act-1872-claim-for-necessaries-supplied-to-person-incapable-of-contracting-or-on-his-account/