Under sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which of the following persons is competent to contract as described?
Question and options
Under sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which of the following persons is competent to contract as described?
A usually sane person so delirious with fever that he cannot follow the terms
A minor who falsely tells the other party that he is an adult
A person usually of unsound mind who contracts during an interval of sound mind
A seventeen-year-old who signs with his guardian's written consent
Answer and explanation
Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 lets a person who is usually of unsound mind but occasionally of sound mind contract while of sound mind, so a contract made in a lucid interval is valid. A minor is not competent under section 11 whatever a guardian consents to or the minor misrepresents, and a usually sane person may not contract while delirium prevents him from understanding the terms.
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
UGC NET Law
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
CLAT PG
Subject revision for a passage-based exam
-
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
Subject revision
-
AILET PG
Subject revision
-
Supreme Court Law Clerk and Research Associate
Subject revision
-
Bihar Judicial Services
Subject revision
-
Uttarakhand Judicial Services
Subject revision
Related exam syllabi
More solved explanations in Capacity to contract
- A contract with minor is
- In the English Court of Appeal decision R. Leslie Ltd v. Sheill (1914), the court distinguished restitution from an order to repay a loan. Which borrower was the…
- A minor borrowed some money on a promissory note. After attaining majority, he executed another promissory note in respect of the original loan plus the accrued…
- Which of the following cases is related to the issue of minority in the Contract law?
- In which of the following cases was it held that "an agreement by a minor is void"?