Need for reformation in laws relating to minors?
"Competent to contract"
This is one thing that almost everyone who has covered even a
minute portion of contracts would know. Why I am writing a blog on this
topic is not because I want to brag about my legal knowledge here,
because there is nothing to brag about. Every law student would probably
know of this. But the reason behind me sitting down and typing out all
this is the fact that for the last couple of months, THIS has dominated
my thought process.
At first, this might just look like 'just another law', but
somewhere deep down it goes on to reveal the loopholes in the same. The
world of the contractual capacity of a minor is extremely volatile.
While studying the above mentioned law, the only thing I thought of was,
"I wasted my minority years. I could have done so much and just got
away with it." And mind you, its a very bad sign when a law student
thinks that way. For people who are not aware of this, Section 11 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with what is known as 'Competency to
Contract', under which, minors (anyone below the age of 18 years) is
declared to be incompetent. Leaving this aside, this Section provides
with a few laws, which does nothing but give the minor the freedom to do
what he wants, and not be liable in any which way. As opposed to what
the the Law Commission of India has to say, these provisions seem like
they have been made more to cause a loss in some way to the adult than
to 'protect the rights of the minors'.
In the modern age scenario, where minors are 'minors' only because
of their age and not their 'level of understanding', its high time the
Law Commission of India makes these laws a little more stringent, at
least towards minors who fraudulently enter into contracts. Currently,
even if a minor 'falsely represents' himself to be a major and enters
into a contract, there is no relief available to the other contracting
party. Which does not suffice the 'aim' of creating laws, that is to
provide the people with justice. The 'law of estoppel' does not apply to
a minor. This means that like in the above statement, if a minor
represents himself to be a major, he is ALLOWED to later state that he
is not, and then get away with it. The contract is just declared by the
Court as 'void ab intio'.
Numerous amendments have been made till date for the betterment of
the existing laws and various sections of the law repealed to make them
more just and unbiased, but unfortunately there still are many lacunas
in the law which the minors take undue advantage of and the majors are
the ones who have to bear the brunt, without any fault of theirs.
Unfair? Well, doesnt seem like the law making body cares.
But hopefully, the Law Commission is listening.
:)
No comments:
Post a Comment