The Doctrine Of Restitution, Capacity, And Fairness In Bailment For Minors Under The Indian Contract Act, 1872
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 20
- 1 min read
Kamal Kumar Mishra & Advaith Sri Krishna Datta Mamidanna, Symbiosis Law School, Noida, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
ABSTRACT
This study examines the complex legal situation of minors in the context of bailment under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. While Section 11 declares contracts involving minors void ab initio to protect them from exploitation, the concept of bailment, a relationship based on the transfer of possession rather than ownership, raises tricky legal issues when minors act as bailors or bailees. This paper explores a minor's capacity to participate in bailment and the consequences of such agreements under Indian law. The study highlights how courts combine legal incapacity with fairness principles, such as restitution and unjust enrichment, through doctrinal analysis supported by key case laws such as Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose and Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer. By examining English and American law side by side, we may better understand the best practices, especially regarding the notion of advantageous contracts. The study demonstrates that, although formal contracts with minors are unenforceable, courts may impose quasi- contractual duties in bailment cases to foster fairness and justice. This convergence of contract law and equity illustrates changing judicial interpretations of adolescents' legal responsibilities in practical, real-world situations.
Keywords: Minors and Contracts, Bailment, Quasi-Contract, Beneficial Contracts, Unjust Enrichment, Comparative Legal Analysis.
