Case Study On Minor Agreement

C) Minor in a twinning business — Explicitly, a minor cannot become a partner in a partnership business. However, under section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, a minor may be admitted to the benefits of such a company through an agreement entered into by the minor`s guardian, provided that all partners give their consent to the company. A minor who is thus admitted to the partnership is entitled to a share of the property and profits of the company, as agreed. In addition, this minor can also have access to all the company`s accounts and view them. [20] Disclaimer: This story was originally published on the Law Column website on this link – www.lawcolumn.in/2019/12/minor-agreements.html on December 23, 2019. A minor in India cannot be declared insolvent or bankrupt and his property cannot be seized. Under the Family Law Reform Act [xix], the age of majority was increased from 21 to 18. [xx] Kamal is therefore a minor and is therefore unable to enter into a contract in accordance with section 11,[xxi] and the contract therefore becomes void from the outset. This lawyer argues that the study table in question is not «necessary».

The court must take into account the nature of the goods delivered and the circumstances of the minor. As in Jagon Ram Marwari v. Mahadeo Prasad Sahu, things may be «necessary» for a minor, but quality or quantity may render them useless. Objects that are certainly of real use, but that are excessively expensive, cannot be «necessary». [xxiii] A learning box is a good that is of an essential quintessence for the training of a high school student. The seller (who is responsible for proof) must prove that the delivered goods were suitable for the estate or position of a minor`s life and that they were adapted to his real needs at that time, i.e. that the minor did not have care from other sources. [xxiv] As already mentioned and as the matrix of facts makes clear, the purchase of the study table in the accused`s words was «money for the purchase of useless items.» Moreover, the table was by no means the quintessence for the miner`s academics. The furniture was not deemed «necessary» in the case of Stocks v. Wilson. [xxv] In arguendo «a study chart for 5000 rupees» is excessively expensive.

In Ryder v. Wombwell, [xxvi] it was claimed that although the buttons were used in regular clothing and were a «necessary» and «outnormal» circumstance, the fact that the buttons in question were diamond buttons made them different. Similarly, a furnished or lush study table (which can cost up to 5000 rupees) may not be necessary if several foldable and correct study tables are available for less than 1100 rupees. [xxvii] Even if one of these arguments is put forward, it would be sufficiently obvious that the table of studies in question was not «necessary». . . .