The rules of estoppel do not apply to a minor: a minor is not bound by his misrepresentations. But when a minor enters into a contract fraudulently posing as a major, he cannot be prevented from defending minorities. The estoppel rule cannot be applied to minors. Suppose you have a contract with a miner to paint in your office. They gave the person the money to buy paint, and they never did the job. When they were contacted, they said they no longer wanted to do the job. The miner`s position under the Indian Contract Act of 1872 must be concluded, because a minor cannot enter into a contract and the same would be null and void from the initio. The minor cannot count on the ratification of the treaty he concluded during his minority. The reason is that ratification relates to the past, when the person was a minor, and that an unselected treaty cannot be legitimized thereafter. If necessary, a new contract may be entered into with a new counterparty after reaching retirement age. In addition, the agreement of a minor cannot be required for a specified benefit, as it would lead to an inconclusive agreement. However, a minor is only responsible for the requirement of necessities. Small shareholder: a minor cannot become a shareholder of a company because he is not in a position to enter into a contract.
A company may also refuse to register, transfer or transfer shares to a minor unless the shares are fully paid for. If a minor inherits certain shares, he can become a shareholder through his legal guardian. Minor under Negotiable Instruments Act: Minor can draw or trade tradable instruments (i.e. exchanges, exchange rates, bonds, cheques). But it assumes no personal responsibility in such cases. A negotiable instrument, signed in favour of a minor, can be implemented by the minor. A minor may be a promise or a beneficiary. It can also become a supporter by transferring a negotiable instrument.
A minor is responsible for the reflections. The word „necessities“ is not defined in the statute, but a clear explanation of the meaning of the term is given by Alderson B in his judgment in Chapple v Cooper: „The things that are necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. First, food, clothing, housing, etc. Luxury items are always excluded, although luxury items are allowed in some cases. A minor is also responsible for necessary services, such as providing education, medical services or legal advice. Therefore, „necessity“ is a relative factor and can be determined on the basis of the circumstances and facts of the case. According to Section 68 of the Contracts Act, „if a person who is unable to enter into a contract or a person legally bound to assist is provided by another person, the person who made these deliveries has the right to be compensated by the property of such an incompetent person.“ Therefore, two conditions are necessary to prove the liability of a minor (1) the contract must be intended for his support or his standard of living. (2) it does not yet have sufficient supply for these needs. When a minor is supplied and already has a sufficient quantity of delivery of this necessary property, the minor is not required to reimburse the supplier and the price is not refundable. In India, the responsibility of the minor does not depend on the consent of the minor. It is the result of a quasi-contractual nature, i.e.
the responsibility is only that of the estate of the minor.