When a contract becomes invalid, any person who benefits from a benefit of the contract must reimburse it to the other party or pay compensation due.  However, minors are an exception to this teaching. They are exempted from the re-election of benefits to the other party. A person who cannot make a mental intention to enter into a contract, whether an adult or a minor, may invalidate a contract. The reason one can decide one`s mental capacities is whether one has understood what it was and what the consequences of the treaty are. This is called a “cognitive” test. Another type of test is the “effective” test: a contract is considered inconclusive if one party has reason to know the condition of the other party`s inability to act reasonably. The latter is known as the “motivation test”. In this document, the court measures the ability to enter into or not to enter into an agreement.
These tests usually give different results. A contract concluded by the guardian of a minor to its advantages: in this case, the minor who is a promise can sue the party in need if a party does not keep its promise. In the case of Great American Insurance v. Madan Lal, the guardian entered into a fire insurance contract on behalf of his son for the minor`s property. If the property was damaged, compensation was called into question by the minor, the contract was refused by the insurer due to the minor`s inability to conclude a contract. Subsequently, however, it was found that this contract was enforceable and that the insurer was liable to the guardian. (1) The agreement of a minor is void from the outset: a contractual agreement relating to a person under the age of 18 in India is considered null and void from the outset, just as a minor cannot enter into a contract. The consent of a minor can be easily explained by the case of Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose. The concept of a minor`s consent is explained in Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose: on the basis of the facts discussed above, it can be concluded that a minor`s contract is not valid as soon as a contract is concluded with the minor because a minor cannot constitute a mental capacity to enter into a contract. In addition to the nullity of a minor`s consent, there are certain exceptions to the general rule.
It therefore concludes that the consent of a minor is considered non-aeriel from the outset because the minor is not in a position to constitute a mental intention to conclude a contract and also because of the minor`s inability to draw the consequences of the contract. These are necessarily the things that are in principle necessary for a minor. . . .