As with contracts entered into by adults, minors have to fulfill certain prerequisites before a

contract is considered enforceable. The primary requirement is having the capacity to

contract. Capacity to contract is questionable when dealing with minors because the
rationale is that a minor is regarded as not having sufficient capacity to understand and
pass upon questions involving contractual rights. Accordingly, a person dealing with a minor
does so at his or her peril and subject to the right of the minor to avoid the contract.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/domesticRelati
ons/FamilyRelationships/Contracts.asp 12:03pm 1/31/2016

RATIFICATION- To approve and give formal sanction to

Whether a minor can be made bound by a contract on ratifying it after attaining

majority?
Ratification- The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed.

(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ratification)

1. 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.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/legal-issue-ratification-contract-67487.html
1/30/2015 7:13pm

2. The contract act simply states that a person who is of the age of majority is
competent to contract, and thus, a minors 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 minors agreement.
An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio. a minor cant 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 a 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..... 1 (1
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/contract-ratification-434-1.html
8:41pm 25/1/2016)

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 promise.[25
But in the present case, the defendant did not receive any benefit on attaining the
majority. ]

According to Privy Council[26] 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 authorise an act cant give validity after ratifying it.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

Indran Ramaswamy v. Ananthappa, 16 MLJ 422

Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer, AIR 1928 All 440.
Kundan Bidi v. Sree Narayan, (1906-07) 11 CWN 135.
Irvine v. Union Bank Of Australia, ILR (1877) 3 Cal 283 (PC).

3. A minors agreement is void. Being a nullity it has no existence in

the eye of law. It is, therefore, incapable of ratification 1 and cannot
support a fresh promise by the infant after he has attained
majority2. Accordingly, a promissory note executed by a person on
attaining majority, in settlement of an earlier one executed by him
while a minor, in consideration of a sum of money received by him
during minority, is bad for want of consideration.3 So also, where a
minor on attaining majority executed a mortgage bond in favour of
a creditor for consideration which represented debts incurred during
minority, and also a fresh advance made at the time of the
mortgage, it has been held that the mortgage was enforceable only
to the extent of fresh advance , the reason being that an infants
contract being void is incapable of ratification on attaining majority .
4

1- Ulfat v. Gauri ILR 33 All 657; Amar v. Khudu 53 IC 123; Lachhmi v.

Bhagatram 99IC 318; Gauri v. Jawala 127 IC 868; Kishan v. Abdul AIR
1934 Pesh 123
2- Sadasheo v. Shankar AIR 1938 Nag 68

3- Indran v. Anthappa 16 MLJ 422; Arumugam v. Duraisinga ILR 37 Mad

38; Chikhuri v. Gopal 75 IC 1002
4- Narendra v. Hrishikesh 46 IC 765; Bhola v. Bhagat AIR 1927 Lh 24;
Narain v. Chiranji ILR 46 All 568

Ratifier must have been competent to authorise the act. The act to be ratified must be
one which the person ratifying had himself power to 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 ihe ratifies.[15]
[15] Bird v. Brown (1850) 4 EX. 786 : 80 R.R 775

Unlike the law in England which, in certain cases, gives a binding effect after majority to
a contract entered into by an infant during infancy, the law here declares the minor's
contract void and incapable of ratification.
That being so it can scarcely have been intended to impose an obligation on the minor,
after attaining majority, to set aside a transaction entered into during minority and
which it has expressly declared to be void and incapable of ratification. If that were its
intention the attitude of the law would be inconsistent and it would be inflicting an
obligation upon the minor in consequence of an attempted contractual obligation
entered into by him during minority. I think this is a sufficient answer to the defendant
on this point.
(Narsagauda

Savantgauda Patil vs Chawagauda Adgauda Patil

(1918) 20 BOMLR 802, 47 Ind Cas 581