A trader supplied to a minor wheat and rice required for food. On the failure of the minor to pay, for it, the trader files a suit.
The trader
A. Will get no relief since minor's agreements are void
B. Will get no relief since the supplies were not made at the desire of the minor
C. Can recover the price of the goods supplied, as there was an implied promise
D. Is entitled to be reimbursed out of the property of the minor, since the articles supplied constitute necessaries
Answer: Option D
Solution (By Examveda Team)
Minors and Contracts: Generally, agreements with minors (individuals under 18 in India) are considered void, meaning they are not enforceable by law.* Exception: Necessaries: However, there's an important exception to this rule. If a minor is supplied with "necessaries" suited to their condition in life, the supplier is entitled to be reimbursed from the minor's property.
* What are "Necessaries"?: "Necessaries" aren't just bare essentials for survival. They include goods and services reasonably required for the minor's support, based on their standard of living. Food (wheat and rice) is a classic example of a necessary.
* Why not the other options?:
* Option A: While generally true that minor's agreements are void, the "necessaries" exception applies here.
* Option B: The law implies a quasi-contractual obligation even if the minor didn't specifically ask for the goods.
* Option C: There isn't an 'implied promise' in the usual contractual sense, but the legal obligation arises from the supply of necessaries.
In Summary: The trader can't sue the minor personally to recover the money. However, because the trader supplied essential food items (necessaries), they have the right to be reimbursed from the minor's property.
Join The Discussion
Comments (1)
Indian Contract Act:- Gods displayed in showcase of a shop with price tag is -
A. Invitation to offer
B. Counteroffer
C. Communication
D. None of these
A. Is available to Y's representatives alone
B. Is available to Z alone
C. Is available to Y's representatives & Z both
D. Is available to Y's representatives & after the death of Z, his representatives
Moses v. Macferlan (1555-1774) is a case relating to
A. Theory of unjust enrichment
B. The right of lien
C. Test of agency
D. Doctrine of frustration
A. The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
B. A promise made without any intention of performing it
C. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is true, by one who does believe it to be true
D. None above

I think correct option is D