Raj Rani v. Prem Adib (1949) — Minor’s Capacity & Personal Service Contracts
Primary: minor’s capacity; personal service; consideration; privity
Secondary: employment of minors; apprenticeship vs service; enforceability
Quick Summary
A film artist (a minor) was promised a one-year job through an oral agreement made by her father. The producer later replaced her and denied the contract. The Court held: no valid consideration, and a minor cannot sue on a personal service contract. Result: neither side could sue on that agreement.
- Benefit to a minor does not automatically allow a suit.
- Personal service ≠ apprenticeship/marriage contracts.
Issues
- Can the minor bring an action against the producer on an oral personal service contract made by her father?
Rules
- A contract that merely benefits a minor does not by itself allow the minor to sue.
- Personal service contracts are treated differently from apprenticeship or marriage contracts.
- Consideration must exist; an agreement without consideration is void.
Facts — Timeline
Optional
Oral Hiring
Father and producer agree to employ the plaintiff for 1 year at ₹9,500 in 12 monthly parts.
Replacement
After a month, producer hires another artist for the same role; work for plaintiff stops.
Allegations & Termination
Producer alleges breach and terminates without paying balance.
Suits & Counter-claim
Plaintiff claims ₹8,708 for remaining months. Producer denies contract and counter-sues for ₹5,000 damages.
Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent
Plaintiff (Minor)
- Binding one-year job; wrongful termination; salary due.
- Agreement was for her benefit; should be enforceable.
Defendant (Producer)
- No consideration; oral promise via father is void.
- Minor cannot sue on personal service contract.
Judgment
For the Defendant
The Bombay High Court held the oral agreement void for want of consideration. It was not a special class contract (like apprenticeship). The plaintiff was a minor and therefore could not sue on it. Neither party could enforce the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
- A contract benefiting a minor does not per se give a right to sue.
- Personal service contracts are not treated like apprenticeship/marriage contracts.
- Absence of consideration makes the agreement void.
Why It Matters
This case draws a clear line for minor’s contracts in employment contexts. It warns producers, parents, and agents: without consideration and proper capacity, oral hiring promises can collapse in court.
Key Takeaways
- Minor cannot sue just because a contract benefits them.
- Personal service ≠ protected category.
- Oral promises need consideration and clarity.
- Use written contracts with capacity safeguards.
- For minors, consider guardian approvals and lawful exceptions.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “CAP” — Capacity • Apprenticeship ≠ Personal • Consideration
- Capacity: Minor lacks capacity to sue on such contracts.
- Apprenticeship ≠ Personal: Personal service is not a protected exception.
- Consideration: No consideration → no contract.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Can a minor enforce an oral personal service contract arranged by her father?
Rule
Benefit to minor ≠ automatic enforceability; personal service is outside narrow exceptions; consideration required.
Application
No valid consideration shown; agreement not in protected class; plaintiff was a minor.
Conclusion
Agreement void; neither party can sue. Claim fails.
Glossary (Easy English)
- Minor
- A person under the legal age; has limited capacity to contract.
- Consideration
- Something of value exchanged; without it, a promise is usually not enforceable.
- Personal Service
- Employment relying on personal skills (like acting); treated strictly for minors.
Student FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now