NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY
2015
LAW OF CONTRACTS-I PROJECT
TOPIC~ RATIFICATION OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT IN INDIA
AND ENGLAND.
Submitted By~
MUDIT NIGAM
B.A.LL.B(Hons.)-46
Submitted To~
MRS. PADMA SINGH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
2nd TRIMESTER.
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide
PROF. PADMA SINGH for his exemplar guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this thesis. The help and guidance given by him time to time shall
carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.
I am obliged to staff members of NLIU for the valuable information provided by them in
their respective field. I am grateful for their cooperation during the period of my assignment.
Lastly I thank almighty , my parents and friends for their constant encouragement without
which this assignment would not be possible
MUDIT NIGAM
2015-B.A.LL.B.-46
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC
PAGE NO
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………Page 4-5
OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………………..Page 12
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES……………………………………………..Page 6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………Page 6
SOURCES OF DATA………………………………………………….Page 6
FRAMING OF HYPOTHESIS………………………………………..Page 6
DESCRIPTION…………………………………………………….....Page 7-18
 PART A : INDIAN LAWS
 PART B : ENGLISH LAWS
 PART C: DIFFERENCES
CONCLUSION………………………………………………..……… Page 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………...Page 20
3
INTRODUCTION
The generally accepted principal whereby acts which have no effect on the principal because
they have been carried out by an agent holding itself out to have authority but actually
without its authority or exceeding its authority may be authorized by the principal, at a later
stage. Such subsequent authorization is known as ‘Ratification’.
Like the original authorization, ratification is not subject to any requirement as to form. As it
is unilateral manifestation of intent, it may be either express or implied from words or
conduct and, though normally communicated to the agent, to the third party, or to both, it
need not to be communicated to anyone, provided that is manifested in some way and can
therefore be ascertained by probative material.
Contract ratification is necessary when a contract is voidable but the parties determine that
they would prefer to execute and perform the contract anyway. For example, if a 16-year-old
signed a contract to purchase a car, that contract would be voidable, as contacts can only be
signed by individuals 18 years or older. On reaching the age of majority, the person who
signed when underage can honor the purchase contract through ratification. As a smallbusiness owner, you may be required at times to ratify contracts signed by individuals who
were not authorized to provide a signature.
Void contracts cannot be ratified because they are not capable of being legally executed.
Examples of void contracts include contracts based on illegal subject matter, contracts for the
performance of impossible events, and contracts restraining a person's choice of who to
marry. Contracts that are otherwise voidable, but not void, can be faithfully performed
through the process of ratification. Examples of voidable contracts include contracts where a
party is incapacitated at the time of signing due to drugs or alcohol, and contracts made under
conditions of duress.
If you wish to ratify a voidable contract, you should draft a letter to the other party. In your
letter state why you desire to ratify the contract and why you believe the contract is capable
of being upheld. Ask that the other party contact you, and ask if they are willing to sign a
ratification agreement. Ratification agreement must state that the parties desire to ratify a
contract, and a copy of the contract should be attached to the ratification agreement. The
ratification agreement should state the date of ratification. You can also include additional
4
clauses, such as how notice is to be provided under the agreement and the state law governing
the agreement. The ratification agreement must be signed by both parties.
in English contract law, a minor is any individual under the age of 18 years
old. Historically, the age had been 21, until the Family Law Reform Act 1969. As a general
rule, a minor is not bound by contracts he makes, though the adult party whom he contracts
with is. Once a minor reaches the age of majority however, he can elect to ratify a contract
made as a minor in full capacity. This rule is subject to several types of contracts which a
minor will be bound by, and his right to repudiate such contracts.
5
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE~
The aim of the researcher is to do a descriptive and analytical study of the contractual validity
of agreements in subject to ratification by others. This is in special context to minor’s
agreement.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY~
As whole research work for this work is confined to the library, books and internet and no
field work has been done hence researcher in his research work, the researcher has opted the
doctrinal methodology of research. Researcher has also followed the uniform mode of
citation throughout the project work.
SOURCES OF DATA~
The following Sources of data have been used in this project1.
Books
2.
Internet
3.
Journals
FRAMING OF HYPOTHESIS
Before starting the project work, the researcher has presumed the following hypothesis:
“Ratification means the subsequent adoption and acceptance of an actor agreement. A
minor's agreement being a nullity and void ab-initio has no existence in the eye of law. It
cannot be ratified by the minor on attaining the age of majority, for, an agreement void abinitio cannot be made valid by subsequent ratification”
6
“INDIAN LAW”
CONRACTUAL
VALIDITY
OF
AGREEMENT
SUBJECT
TO
RATIFICATION
Ratification is in law equivalent to previous authority it may be expressed or it may be
affected impliedly by conduct1. Section 196 and 197 of the act show that an act done by
person who is not authorized to do it, but who purports to act as an agent for another person,
can retrospectively ratified by such other person. From this it follows logically, that such an
act on the part of the person purporting to act as agent is not void but voidable. If it is not
ratified it becomes void but if it is ratified it will be validated. 2
It is doubtful that whether the term “ratification” may properly be applied to the conduct of a
person, who choose to treat as genuine a promissory note on which his signature has been
forged3.It is rather on the principal of estoppel that such a person may, under such
circumstances render himself liable.
Ratification in order to be effective can only be by an authority that is in existence on the day
of transaction was entered into and it should also be competent to ratify.
There is ample material on record in the present case that the company had ratified the act of
the person who had signed on behalf of the company even his act of signing on behalf of the
company was without authority.
The doctrine of ratification comes into play when a person has done an act on behalf of
another without his knowledge or consent. The doctrine gives the person on whose behalf the
act is done an option either to adopt the act by ratification or to disown it. So, it can be
derived that ratifications are either empress or implied. The former are made in express and
direct terms of assent; the latter are such as the law presumes from the acts of the principal;
as, if Soham buy goods for Rahul, and the latter, knowing the fact, receive them and apply
1
Jai Narain Lal Tandon v. Bechoo Lal, A.I.R. 1938 All. 369
Bhawani Shankar v. Gordhandas Jamunadas, A.I.R 1943 P.C.
3
Book v. Hook, L.R. 5 Ex.
2
7
them to his own use. By ratifying a contract a man adopts the agency; altogether, as well
what is detrimental as that which is for his benefit.
Therefore ratification is a kind of affirmation of unauthorised acts. It is thus explained in
section 196 of Indian Contract Act 1872 and in other section.
196. Right of a person as to acts done for him without his authority- Effects of ratification.Where acts are done by one person on behalf of another, but without his knowledge or
Authority, he may elect to ratify or to ratify or to disown such acts. If he ratifies them, the
same effects will follow as if they had been performed by his authority.4
197. Ratification may be expressed or implied.Ratification may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of the person on whose
belief the acts are done.
198. Knowledge requisite for valid ratification.
Therefore as a general rule of this subject, the principal has the right to elect whether he will
adopt the unauthorized act or not. But once doing a ratified act, upon a full knowledge of all
the material circumstances, the ratification cannot be revoked or recalled, and the principal
becomes bound as if he had originally authorized the act. So, the ratification of a lawful
contract has a retrospective effect on the subject, and binds the principal from its date, and
not only from the time of the ratification, but for the ratification is equivalent to an original
authority, according to the maxim, that Omnis ratihabitio mandate aeguiparatur.
Therefore such ratification in general meanings relieve the agent from all responsibility on
the contract, when we would otherwise have been liable for such kind of act. So an infant is
not liable on his contracts; but if, after coming of age, he ratifies the contract by an actual or
express declaration, he will be bound to perform it, as if it had been made after he attained
full age. Hence it can be conferred that the ratification must be voluntary, deliberate, and
intelligent, and the party must know that without it, he would not be bound to fulfill the
obligation. But a confirmation or ratification of a contract, may be implied from acts of the
infant after he becomes of age; as by enjoying or claiming a benefit under a contract be might
have wholly rescinded and an infant partner will be liable for the contracts of the firm, or at
4
Williams v. North China insurance Co. (1876) 1 CPD 757
8
least such as were known to him, if he, after becoming of age, confirm the contract of
partnership by transacting business of the firm, receiving profits, and the like. We can take
example of ratification of Treaties.
VALIDITY OF CONSENT
The English common law relating to the above topic report from the two Latin Maxims Qui
Per Alium Facit Per seiprom facere Videtur and Qui Facit per alium facit perse thereby
meaning “ He who does not act through another is deemed in law to do it himself” and ‘he
who acts by another acts by himself”.
The law of agency is based upon the consent of one party that the other party the agent shall
act on his behalf and the other party consents to do so.
According to CHITTY5 “At common law the word Agency represents a body of general
rules under which one person the agent has the power to change the legal relation of another,
the principal.”
According to ANSON “ Although at common law as a general rule A cannot by contract
with B to confer rights or impose liabilities upon a third party, yet A may or act on the behalf
of B with B’S authority for the purpose of bringing B in a legal relations with a third party6.
So principal is bound by the act done by an agent or the contracts made by made by him on
behalf of the principal in the same manner, as if the acts had been done or the contracts had
been entered into by principal himself, in person7.
Therefore when a contract is entered into through the medium of an agent the principal
becomes liable towards the third party whether he has given his consent before or not, it does
not matter even when such contracts are voidable in nature. Ordinarily, as the agent is only a
connecting link, he is not liable personally towards the third party 8
5
H.G.Beale, Chitty on Contracts ( special contract Act), (Sweet and Maxwell,30th Edition,2008)
J Beastson, Anson’s Law of Contract (Oxford University Press,28th ed., 2008)
7
Sec.226
8
Sec 230
6
9
The power to ratify remains with the principal itself so consent given or not to agent it hardly
matters because obligation part comes to principal.9
Conditions of a valid ratification
Act must be done on behalf of another.1. The first essential to the doctrine of ratification, with its necessary consequence of
relating back, is that the agent shall not be acting of himself, but shall be intending to
bind a named or ascertainable principal.
10
The agent must have done the act on the
behalf of the supposed principal.11And the motive with which the act done is
immaterial. 12
2. Person ratifying must have been in existence at the time of act.- it has been laid down
that ratification , in order to be effective, can only be by an authority that is in
existence on the date the transaction was entered into and it should also be competent
to ratify13.
3. The thing must exist- In order to recognize or ratify something it is necessary that
thing must exist14, that is the contract, or some rights or obligations arising under it,
must be subsisting on the date of Ratification.
4. Ratification must be with full knowledge of all facts. In order to establish case of
ratification it is essential that the party ratifying should be conscious.
5. Ratifier must have been competent to authorize the act. The act to be ratified must be
one which the person ratifying had himself power to do and the ratification must take
place at a time, when and under circumstances under which, the ratifying party might
himself have lawfully done the act which he ratifies.15
9
Justice A. RAMAN, Law of Contract and Specific Relief p.no.253(2nd editon,1984)
Imperial Bank of Canada v. Mary Victoria Begley, A.IR.1936 P.C 193
11
Marsh V. Joseph [1897] 1 ch. 214; Surendra Nath v. Kedar Nath, A.I.R 1936 CAL. 8
12
Subbaraya Chetty v. Nagappa Chetty, A.I.R 1927 mad. 805: 103 I.C. 150
13
Mohammad Tajuddin v. Gulam Mohd., A.I.R. 1960 A.P 340 at p. 342
14
Suckchand v. Girdhari Das, A.I.R 1926 Cal. 1215 at P. 1217: 4 C.L.J 127: 97 I.C. 1016
15
Bird v. Brown (1850) 4 EX. 786 : 80 R.R 775
10
10
In the words of Sir B. Peacock: “ A ratification is in law treated as equivalent to a previous
authority, and it follows that, as a general rule, a person or body of persons, not competent to
authorize an act, cannot give validity by ratifying it”16
In Suraj Narain v. N.W.F. Province17, it was held that where the responsibility for the
passing of a particular kind of order is by statute vested in specific authority.
6. Ratification to be exercised within reasonable time. An option of ratification must be
exercised within a reasonable time of the act purporated to be ratified 18, “ ratification”
in every case within a reasonable time.
7. Communication of ratification to other side. There can be no ratification of contract
unless it is communicated to the other side or subsequent action shows an approbation
of the contract.19
8. Act to be ratified must not be void or illegal. An act which is void or illegal cannot be
validated by any amount of ratifications.20
9. There must be relationship of principal and agent. - Another condition to be satisfied
is that there must be a relationship of principal and agent.21
16
Irvine v. Union Bank Of Australia, I.L.R C Cal. 280
A.I.R. 1942 F.C. 3.
18
Madura Municipality v. Alagiri Swami Naidu, A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 957
19
Ganpat Rao v. Iswar Singh, A.I.R 1938 Nag. 482
20
Kishor Das v. Raman Lal, A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 362
17
21
Kalyani Achi v. K.N.S.R.M.A.R Ramanathan Chetty, 28 I.C. 135 AT PP. 137-38
11
VALIDITY OF MINOR’S CONTRACT
In Minor’s case~
The contract act simply states that a person who is of the age of majority is competent to
contract, and thus, a minor’s is not competent to contract. In Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas
Ghose 22 Privy Council made it clear that that contract or agreement done with Minor is void.
No Ratification of a minor’s agreement~
An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio. A minor can’t ratify an agreement on
attaining the age of majority validate the same.23
One of the reason for the rule that a minor cannot ratify an agreement after attaining majority
is that when the agreement was entered into during the minority there was no ‘proper
consideration’ and the ‘bad consideration’ is not enough for validating that agreement by its
ratification. This will be clear from the observation of SULAIMAN, C.J. of the Allahabad
High Court:24
“Under section 11 a minor is not competent to contract he is disqualified from contracting.
He can, therefore, neither make valid proposal nor make a valid acceptance as defined in
section-2, clause (a) and (b). He cannot, therefore, for the purposes of this Act be strictly
called a promisor within the meaning of clause (c). Nor can, therefore, anything done by the
promise be strictly called a consideration at the desire of a promisor as contemplated by
clause (d). It may, therefore, be urged that an argument by a minor cannot be strictly as being
for “consideration”.....
If the part of the benefit was received by a person during his minority and the other part after
attaining the age of majority, a promise by him after attaining majority to pay an amount in
respect of both the benefits is enforceable, as that constitutes a valid consideration for the
22
(1903) 30 IA 114 (PC).
Indran Ramaswamy v. Ananthappa, 16 MLJ 422
24
Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer, AIR 1928 All 440.
23
12
promise25.A minor can’t even enter into a contract through guardian or any other agent
because it is void contract and the same is not capable of ratification by a minor, on his
attaining majority. According to Privy Council26 stated that “A ratification in law is treated as
equivalent to a previous authority, and it follows that as a general rule, a person or body of
persons, not competent to authorize an act can’t give validity after ratifying it.
State liability for the act officers~
The matter has been discussed under sec.65. In Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasari v. Moreshwar
Parashram27, the contention was raised that the contracts having not been expressed to be
made by the President as required by Article 299 of the Indian constitution were void, but it
was ruled that the contracts in question are not void simply because the state officers who
made such contracts could be sued upon them, and they could be by the Government.28
Ratification after principal’s death:It is common practice that if an agent functioning under a written authority of the principal
holds himself out as such agent after the death of the principal and if person competent to
ratify his action after the death of the principal ratify the same in manner known to law, then
the agent should be deemed to have acted within the limits of authority and that he validly
holds himself out as agent of the subsequent proprietors.29
25
Kundan Bidi v. Sree Narayan, (1906-07) 11 CWN 135.
Irvine v. Union Bank Of Australia, ILR (1877) 3 Cal 283 (PC)
27
A.I.R 1954 S.C. 236.
28
Sewakissendas Bhather v. Dominion of India, A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 617.
29
Management of Sri Sivasakthi Bus Service v. K.P. Gopal, A.I.R. 1971 Mad. 434
26
13
EFFECTS OF RATIFICATION
It is established that rule that an act done for another by a person not assuming to act for
himself, but for such other person, though without any precedent authority whatever,
becomes the act of the principal if subsequently ratified by him, within a reasonable time. In
the case of a continuing obligation, such as the engagement of a servant or the continuance of
tenancy, an absence of repudiation or acceptance of service or rent with full knowledge of the
facts, implied an undertaking to adhere to the obligation and operates as ratification or
renewal of the old contract by the party accepting the service or rent.30
So the ratification relates back to the original making of contract and confirms it from that
time. It places all the parties in exactly the same position31 as they would have occupied in
the case of a precedent agency by formal constitution. So ratification will support an action
previously brought upon the contract in the name of the principal, though without his
knowledge. The same is equally true of arbitration.32
30
Huddain Ali Murja v. Mohd. Azim Khan, 31 I.C. 728
Supra note 8.
32
Saturjit v. Dulhin, I.L.R. 124 Cal. 469
31
14
ENGLISH LAW
MINORS AND THEIE CAPACITY TO CONTRACT IN ENGLAND
Those individuals who are under the age of 18 are recognised as minors, this is outlined
under the Family Reform Act 1969. Minors have capacity limitations; there are different
types of contracts where there may be liability of minors.
The Sale of Goods Act (1979) defines liability of minors when buying necessaries.
Necessaries are the basic goods needed for living, The Sale of Goods Acts states, ‘goods
suitable to the condition in life of the minor’. Therefore, minors are liable under a contract for
buying necessaries. Necessaries extend beyond the essentials for living, they can also be
items which are needed for a young person and for their lifestyle. The minor is not liable for
goods or services that have not been delivered to them. Valuable utility items may be
considered necessaries but items of luxury are not considered as necessaries. Therefore, a
minor would still be liable to pay for such utility items. An example of this was in the case of
Chapple v Cooper (1844), where a service was considered necessaries. However, in the case
of Nash v Inman (1908), it was decided that waistcoats supplied to a student could have been
considered as necessaries, but in this case they were not necessaries because the student’s
father had already provided the student with many waistcoats. When something is considered
necessaries and the minor liable to pay a reasonable price, this would depend on the income
of the minor and whether the goods and services are actually necessaries and are needed by
the minor. It would also depend on the supply, even if the minor needed something and can
afford it, the good or service would not be considered necessaries if the minor already has a
supply of it.
Contracts that are considered for the benefit of the minor are that of service, education,
training, apprenticeship and employment. However, the courts will reject a contract if it is
considered not in the benefit of a minor. For example, in the case of De Francesco v Barnum
(1889), a minor aged 14 years old, had an agreement to train as a dancer on stage, however,
the contract had conditions which were considered not beneficial to the minor and therefore,
the minor was not bound by the contact.
A case where a contract had been enforced is the case of Doyle v White City Stadium (1935),
this is where there was an agreement to train a boxer. There was no money paid, but the
contract was enforceable because it was considered that the contract was beneficial because
15
of the training. In another case where the contract was enforceable was in Clements v
London & NW Rail Co (1894) where certain benefits were removed from the contract, but
the contract was considered to be beneficial.
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS WITH MINORS
There are four types of contract, commonly referred to collectively as ‘voidable contracts’,
which bind both the parties unless the minor repudiates them. The minor can repudiate before
he attains majority or within a reasonable time thereafter. The contracts are :

Contracts relating to an interest in land (a minor can no longer hold alegal estate in
land- Law of Property Act-1925, s 1(6) )

Marriage settlements e.g. In Edwards v Carter.(1893)
A minor tried to repudiate on an agreement to pay £1500 to trustee's under a marriage
settlement some four years after obtaining majority. Held whilst minors can repudiate
an agreement they can be sued for liabilities which have already occurred, thus the
minor was not allowed to repudiate the agreement as he had entered adulthood. Point
of law being that minors can repudiate a contract after the age of majority after a
reasonable time, however what is reasonable depends on the facts of the case.
Justice Watson wrote :
“The law gave this minor the privilege of repudiating the obligations which he had
undertaken during his minority within a reasonable time after he came of age. It laid
no obligation upon him - it merely conferred upon him a privilege of which he might
or might not avail himself, as he chose. If he chooses to be inactive, his opportunity
passes away. If he chooses to be active, the law comes to his assistance."

The purchase of or subscription of shares e.g. Steinberg v. Scala (leeds) Ltd. (1923)
A minor brought shares in Scala, the shares were not fully paid up, the issuing
company could demand the rest of the payment latter. They didn't but Ms S paid a
further £250. She latter rejected the contract and wanted her £250 back. Her claim
failed, held, termination meant free from future obligation but not instilled to £250
because she had not been a total failure of consideration as she had received the
shares in return for her money
16

Partnerships e.g. Goode v Harrison (1821)
In Goode v. Harrison,
Bayley, J., in this case, said: "It is clear that an infant may be in partnership. It is true
that he is not liable for contracts entered into doling his infancy; but still, he may be a
partner. If he is in point of fact a partner during his infancy, he may, when he comes
of age, elect if he will continue that partnership or not. If he continues the
partnership, he will then be liable as a partner; if he dissolves the partnership, and if,
when of age, he takes the proper means to let the world know that the partnership is
dissolved, then he will cease to be a partner. But the foundation of my opinion is the
negligence of service generally binding.1 But enlistments in the navy, though made
without the consent of the parent or guardian, are binding, and the infant cannot
avoid them and it is the same as to the army.
RATIFICATION
Ratification with minor does not fall within one of the situations (where it is binging),it is not
binding upon the minor. It is binding upon the other party, but the minor is unlikely to
succeed in an action for specific performance, unless he has already performed his side of the
agreement, because if the lack of mutuality.
Flight v. Bolland (1828) In this case A., an infant, entered into a contract with B. B. refused
to perform. A. brought his bill against B. for specific performance of the contract. The
plaintiff being an infant was not amenable to an order of a court of chancery. Had therefore
the defendant been the plaintiff he could not have had specific performance of A.'s promises.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's bill, saying, "It is not doubtful that it is a general principle
of courts of equity to interpose only where the remedy is mutual."
However, even if the contract is not within one of the special cases, it may become binding
upon a minor if he ratifies it, expressly or impliedly, upon attaining age of his majority.
Ratification could occur at common law ( Willaims v Moor (1843) )and the repeal of s 2 of
the Infants Relief Act 1874 by the Minors Contracts Act 1987 means that it is , again,
generally available.
17
Before Ratification, the minor will not be bound. Again it would seem that recovery by the
minor of any property transferred under the “contract” is possible only to the extent that an
adult would able to do so, e.g.. if there has been a total failure of consideration. Again it has
been argued that the restitution should be available simply on the basis of incapacity
DIFFERENCES IN INDIAN AND ENGLISH LAWS
The English Law is the principal source of Indian Law. But the Indian Law
differs from English Law on the subject of minor’s contracts on the following
points:
1.In India the minor’s contract is altogether void but in England it is sometimes
void and sometimes voidable. In England the loan of money to a minor is void.
2.In India, a minor can ratify a fresh consideration of a contract entered into
during minority where as in England he cannot do so.
3.In India a minor on attaining majority can neither sue nor be sued on contracts
entered into by him during minority but in England he can sue on the contract
for damages.
4.In India a minor’s property is liable for the necessaries and not his personal
self acquired property but in England the minor is personallyliable.
5.In India there can be no specific performance by or against the minor unless it
is a contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of the minor sand the minor’s
benefit. In England there can be no specific performance for want of mutuality
in the contract.
18
CONCLUSION
From this project the researcher came to the conclusion that contractual validity agreement in
subject to ratification clearly says that where acts are done by one person on the behalf of
another, but without his knowledge or authority, he may elect to ratify or to disown such acts.
If he ratifies them, the same effects will follow as if they had been performed by his
authority. Agreements which are subject to ratification are voidable in nature. If it is ratifies
by the principal then it becomes legally valid in the court of law. If it is not ratified then the
contract will lose its validity. Similarly if the principal has not consented and not given his
consent to his agent to enter into agreement still he owes a duty towards third party because
principal is bound by the acts done by an agent or the contracts made by him on behalf of the
principal in the same manner, as if the acts had been done or the contracts had been entered
into by the principal himself, in person. The principal is vicarious liable for the frauds or torts
committed by the agent, while acting in the course of the business for the principal.
Similarly in the agreements which are related to minors are void ab initio because they are
not competent to contract and the contract is void.
Law acts as the guardian of minors and protects their rights, because their mental faculties are
not mature- they don't possess the capacity to judge what is good and what is bad for them.
Accordingly, where a minor is charged with obligations and the other contracting party seeks
to enforce those obligations against minor, the agreement is deemed as void ab-initio. In the
leading case of Mohori Bibi vs Dharmo Das Ghosh, a minor executed a mortgage for Rs.
20,000 and received Rs. 8,000 from the mortgagee.
The mortgagee filed a suit for the recovery of his mortgage money and for sale of the
property in case of default. The Privy Council held that an agreement by a minor was
absolutely void as against him and therefore the mortgagee could not recover the mortgage
money nor could he have the minor's property sold under his mortgage.
19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 BOOKS
1. H. G. Beale, Chitty on Contracts (30th ed. 2008)
2. R.G. Padia. Pollock & Mulla’s Indian Contract and Specific Relief Act (13th ed.
2007)
3. P.S Atiyah, Introduction to the Law of Contract (Stephen A. Smith ed., 2007)
4. J Beastson, Anson’s Law of Contract (28th ed. 2008)
5. MLJ Law OF CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF 2nd ed. 2009 justice araman
vol. 1
 WEBSITES
1. “Ratification” available at:
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/contract-ratification-434-1.html
2. “Indian Law Applicable to Agreement subject to ratification – Consequences”
available at:
www.unidroit.org/english/principles/contracts/
3. “ratification of contract” available at:
http:// www.getfreelegalforms.com/ratification.html
20