Agreement By Persons Of Unsound Mind

Indian law has a different view than English law on the matter. According to English law, a person of a person of an unsisting contract can be avoided after his election, if he convinced the court that he was not able to understand the contract and that the other party was aware of it. Therefore, in accordance with English law, the contract is questionable after its election. It only becomes binding on him if he confirms it, Imperial Loan Co v. Gibson (1845) 13 M&W 623). Even under English law, the contract of a crazy person is not invalid. In Campbell v. Hooper ((1855) 3 Sm & G 153), where a mortgage borrower applied for a debt repayment decree and showed that Mortgagor was crazy when he was under contract, and in addition, the lender did not realize it. It has been found that the mere fact of madness cannot invalidate a contract. If the other party has heard about it, it becomes questionable at the choice of the madman.

Thus, it is clear that, according to English law, the most important thing is that the other person with whom the person of the unhealthy man settled had the knowledge whether or not the former is in an unhealthy mental state. When we learn something new, the first question that comes to mind is why we need it and what its applicability is in our daily lives. So, before we discuss our subject, we need to know the purpose of the treaty. The fundamental objective of contract law is to create a framework within which individuals can freely enter into contracts. The word free means that there should be a full and free agreement of the parties. Consent can only be free if it is rational and intentional. Rational approval can only be given if a person is of sound mind. Through this article, the author will attempt to analyze the role of the insolidicity of the mind in the case of a contract with the help of statutes, jurisprudences and judgments concerning English and Indian law. On the other hand, under Indian law, an unhealthy-minded person, when a state of solidity is, is not compatible. The approval of a person with an unhealthy mind is null, Amina Bibi v.

Saiyid Yusuf (ILR (1922) 44 All 748). However, a person who is usually of a healthy mind, but sometimes of unhealthy mind, cannot enter into the contract if he is of unhealthy mind, while a person who is usually of an unhealthy mind, but who is sometimes healthy, can pull himself together at these intervals when he is healthy….