How Does the Indian Contract Act Differ from English Law

12066 Words49 Pages
Contract How does the Indian Contract Act differ from English Law? ________________________________________ The Indian Contract Act is based upon English Law. However, English Law on the subject is not codified. Thus, even though the Courts rely upon English Judgments in certain cases, the statute (Indian Contract Act) reigns supreme in India and, is the final authority. The following points of difference exist between the two laws, regarding contracts: (1) Minors cannot enter into a contract. Under the English Law, a contract entered into by a minor, is voidable at the option of the minor. This means that a minor can, on attaining majority, ratify a contract entered into by him when he was a minor. Under the Indian Contract Act, however, the position is different. A minor is considered absolutely incapable of entering into a contract. This means that the agreement is void ab initio i.e. void right from the start. Such a contract cannot be ratified. Also, it cannot bind the minor even after he attains the age of majority. (2) Contracts without consideration are valid in some cases. The English Law recognizes contracts without consideration. The formal contracts of English Law are binding by their form alone and are older than the doctrine of consideration. Thus, although ingenious attempts have been made to treat consideration, itself, as a matter of form, this is paradoxical because the essence of consideration is exchange of value, regardless of any particular form. Under the Indian Contract Act, a contract without consideration is void and cannot be legally binding or enforceable. This is, however, subject to an exception made under Section 25, which mentions instances of contracts which are valid even without consideration. (3) Past consideration is good. Under the English Law, past consideration is not valid. Under the Indian Contract Act, it

More about How Does the Indian Contract Act Differ from English Law

Open Document