The case of Mohori Bibi v/s Dharmodas Ghose deals with a minor agreement.

Here are the steps explaining the case:

1. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property in favor of Brahmo Dutt, a moneylender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000. The moneylender, Brahmo Dutt, was represented by his attorney, Kedar Nath.

2. Kedar Nath, the attorney, had the knowledge that Dharmodas Ghose was a minor at the time of the contract.

3. The mother of Dharmodas Ghose, Mohori Bibi, sued on his behalf to set aside the mortgage, stating that her son was underage at the time of the contract and could not enter into a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

4. The Privy Council held that as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10, "All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract". A minor is not

Question

The case of Mohori Bibi v/s Dharmodas Ghose deals with a minor agreement.

Here are the steps explaining the case:

1. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property in favor of Brahmo Dutt, a moneylender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000. The moneylender, Brahmo Dutt, was represented by his attorney, Kedar Nath.

2. Kedar Nath, the attorney, had the knowledge that Dharmodas Ghose was a minor at the time of the contract.

3. The mother of Dharmodas Ghose, Mohori Bibi, sued on his behalf to set aside the mortgage, stating that her son was underage at the time of the contract and could not enter into a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

4. The Privy Council held that as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10, "All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract". A minor is not

Knowee AI · Accepted Answer

The case of Mohori Bibi v/s Dharmodas Ghose deals with a minor agreement.

Here are the steps explaining the case:

1. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property in favor of Brahmo Dutt, a moneylender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000. The moneylender, Brahmo Dutt, was represented by his attorney, Kedar Nath.

2. Kedar Nath, the attorney, had the knowledge that Dharmodas Ghose was a minor at the time of the contract.

3. The mother of Dharmodas Ghose, Mohori Bibi, sued on his behalf to set aside the mortgage, stating that her son was underage at the time of the contract and could not enter into a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

4. The Privy Council held that as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10, "All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract". A minor is not

The case Moheri Bibi v/s Dharmodas Ghose deals with*Communication of offerCommunication of acceptanceA minor agreementFraud

Question

Solution

Similar Questions

Upgrade your grade with Knowee