'Mere silence as to facts is not fraud?- Discuss.

A boy of 17 years old goes to a shop in New Market and buys some
food items and some luxurious goods on credit. Subsequently he refuses to pay the price. Advise the shop-
keeper.

Ans:- Mere silence as to facts is not fraud" — Discuss

The statement "Mere silence as to facts is not fraud" relates to a principle in contract law and tort
law which suggests that failure to disclose information, in certain situations, does not
automatically constitute fraud. However, this principle is nuanced and depends on the context of
the situation, such as the relationship between the parties, the nature of the transaction, and the
expectations of disclosure.

Fraud generally involves misrepresentation or concealment of material facts that induce

another party to enter into a contract. The key is whether the silence or non-disclosure can be
regarded as an intentional or misleading omission that leads the other party into a
disadvantageous situation.

Under certain circumstances, silence can amount to fraud, such as:

1. When there is a duty to disclose: In some situations, a party is under a legal or

contractual obligation to disclose specific facts. For example, in a fiduciary relationship,
or where one party has information that the other party could not reasonably discover.
2. Where silence creates a misleading impression: If a party remains silent but their
behavior or actions would lead the other party to believe something is true (e.g., selling a
product knowing it is defective but not disclosing it), this could be considered fraudulent
concealment.

In the case of mere silence, without any duty to speak or mislead, it does not necessarily rise to
the level of fraud.

Advice for the Shopkeeper:

The scenario you present involves a 17-year-old boy who has bought goods on credit and later
refuses to pay. This situation involves several important legal considerations:

1. Capacity to Contract (Minor's Contract): A 17-year-old is considered a minor in most

legal systems (especially under Indian Contract Act, 1872, or similar laws in other
jurisdictions). Generally, contracts made by minors are voidable at their discretion.
Therefore, the shopkeeper may not have a legally binding contract with the boy, as
minors usually cannot be held liable for contracts unless they are for "necessaries" (e.g.,
food, clothing, shelter).
o Necessaries Exception: If the food items and some goods bought by the boy are
deemed necessaries, the shopkeeper may have a claim for payment. What
qualifies as "necessaries" depends on the context and local laws, but food
typically falls under this category.
 oFor non-essential or luxurious goods, the shopkeeper would generally have no
right to claim payment from the minor.
2. Fraud and Misrepresentation: If the minor did not misrepresent his age and presented
himself as an adult (e.g., using a fake ID), this could constitute fraud, and the shopkeeper
might have a stronger legal standing. However, without such misrepresentation, the
minor's refusal to pay may simply be a reflection of the general principle that contracts
with minors are voidable.
3. Advice:
o For Necessaries: The shopkeeper should first assess whether the goods provided
are "necessaries" under the law. If so, they may be able to pursue a claim for the
value of those items.
o For Non-Necessaries: For non-essential goods, the shopkeeper likely cannot
enforce the contract against the minor.
o Avoiding Future Issues: It would be prudent for the shopkeeper to require age
verification or seek parental consent for credit sales to minors in the future.
o Legal Action: The shopkeeper may also consider sending a legal notice
demanding payment, but they should be aware that they may not have much
recourse if the minor does not pay for non-necessary goods.

In summary, the shopkeeper's best course of action will depend on the nature of the goods sold
and the possibility of proving fraud (if the minor misrepresented his age). For non-necessary
goods, the shopkeeper may not have legal grounds to claim payment. However, for necessary
goods, a claim may still be possible.

Who is a minor? What is the minor's position in the law of contract? What is the leading case on this point?
Ans:- Who is a Minor?

A minor is a person who has not yet reached the age of majority, which is typically defined by
law as 18 years old in most jurisdictions. The age of majority can vary slightly depending on the
jurisdiction (e.g., in some cases, 21 years), but in most countries, it is 18. A minor is considered
to lack the full legal capacity to enter into binding contracts.

The Minor's Position in the Law of Contract

Under contract law, a minor's position is generally that their contracts are voidable at their
discretion, not automatically void. This means that a contract entered into by a minor is not
legally binding unless it involves certain exceptions. The rationale behind this rule is the
protection of minors from being exploited or making decisions that they might not fully
understand due to their age and maturity.

Here are the key points about the minor's position in the law of contract:

1. Voidable Contracts: A minor can choose to disaffirm or void a contract they enter into,
even if the other party has fully performed their obligations. This means that, in general,
minors can back out of contracts before or after they turn 18.
 2. Contracts for Necessaries: A contract entered into by a minor for necessaries (such as
food, clothing, medical care, or shelter) is generally enforceable. The minor may still be
required to pay for the goods or services that qualify as "necessaries" because these are
considered essential to the minor’s well-being.
3. Non-Necessaries: Contracts for non-necessaries (such as luxuries or goods not vital for
the minor's daily life) are typically voidable. For example, if a minor buys expensive
gadgets or clothing on credit, the seller cannot generally enforce the payment if the minor
decides not to pay.
4. Misrepresentation of Age: If a minor fraudulently misrepresents their age (e.g., by
using a false identity or lying about their age), some jurisdictions may allow the other
party to seek remedies against the minor. However, in most cases, the minor still retains
the right to void the contract, even if they misrepresented their age.
5. Ratification upon Reaching Majority: If a minor turns 18 and still chooses to continue
with the contract, they may ratify the contract, making it binding.

Leading Case on Minor's Position in Contract Law

The leading case on this point in English law is the case of Nash v. Inman (1908), where the
court held that a contract entered into by a minor for non-necessary goods was not enforceable.

Nash v. Inman (1908)

In this case, a minor (Inman) purchased a large quantity of expensive clothes from a tailor (Nash)
on credit. The court ruled that the contract was voidable, as the goods purchased were not
"necessaries," but instead, luxuries. The court held that even though the minor had received the
goods, the contract was unenforceable because they were not necessary for his life and well-
being.

This case emphasized the rule that contracts with minors for non-necessaries are voidable at the
minor's discretion. The court also illustrated that minors should be protected from the
consequences of making contracts that they may not fully understand or might later regret.

Conclusion

To summarize:

 A minor is a person who is under the age of majority (typically 18 years old).
 The general rule in contract law is that contracts entered into by minors are voidable,
meaning they are not automatically enforceable, except in cases involving necessaries.
 The leading case on this issue is Nash v. Inman (1908), which affirmed that contracts
for non-necessary goods are voidable at the minor's discretion.