Pozovite nas: +381 11 316 07 24

Prvomajska 8n, Zemun Na mapi

About us

What Is the Effect of Agreement Made by Person of Unsound Mind

(b) A healthy person suffering from delirium fever or who is so drunk that he cannot understand the terms of a contract or form a rational judgment about its impact on his interests cannot contract as long as this delirium or drunkenness persists. (i) “A person who is used to having an unhealthy mind, but sometimes a healthy mind, can enter into a contract if he has common sense.” Thus, a patient in an insane asylum, who is in sane minded intervals, can contract during these intervals. Under English law, a person with an unhealthy mind has the right to enter into a contract, although he can cancel his contract if he convinces the court that he was unable to understand the contract and the other party knew it. The contract is voidable at its discretion. An agreement made by a person with an unhealthy mind is treated on the same basis as that of a minor, and therefore an agreement of a person with an unhealthy mind is absolutely null and ineffective against him, but he can benefit from it (Jugal Kishore vs Cheddu). However, the property of a person with an unhealthy mind is always liable for any necessities provided to him or to a person to whom he is legally bound under section 68 of the Act. Indian law has a different view on this issue than English law. Under English law, a person of unfounded importance has jurisdiction to enter into the contract, although the contract may be cancelled at his or her own discretion if he or she satisfies the court that he or she was unable to understand the contract and that the other party was aware of it. Thus, in English law, the contract is questionable at its discretion. This only binds him if he confirms it, Imperial Loan Co v. Stone ((1892) 1 QB 599 (CA)), in this case Lord Esher, stated that a mentally disturbed person may cancel a contract with a person with common sense only in the following circumstances: “When a person enters into a contract and then claims that he was so crazy, that he did not know what he was doing, and proves the assertion that the contract is so binding on him in all respects, whether he is executive or executed, as if he had been in good health when he did, unless he can further prove that the person with whom he entered into a contract knew him as if crazy, that he was unable to understand what it was.

“The situation under English law is the same for drunk people as it is for a person who is mentally affected; Such a contract is not totally void, but may be challenged at the option of the person who entered into the contract in such a state of intoxication that he does not know what he has done, and this fact is the other party to the contract, Surrey v. Gibson ((1845) 13 M&W 623). Even in English law, the contract of a crazy person is not void. In Campbell v Hooper ((1855) 3 S&G 153), where a mortgagee applied for a debt repayment order and the evidence showed that the mortgage debtor was insane when it was contracted and that, moreover, the mortgagee was not aware of it. It has been decided that the mere fact of madness cannot invalidate a contract. If the other party was aware of this, it becomes questionable at the choice of the madman. Thus, it is clear that in English law, the most important thing is that the other person with whom the person of the unhealthy man had a contract knew that the first was in an unhealthy state of mind or not. According to this section, the person entering into the contract must therefore be a person who understands what he is doing and who is able to make a rational judgment on whether what he will do is in his interest or not.

The article goes on to say: 1- Any kind of madness is not legal madness; cognitive ability must be destroyed in order to make it impossible to know the nature of his action or that what he is doing is wrong or illegal; 2. The Court considers that such madness does not exist; 3. The burden of proof of legal insanity lies with the accused, although it is not as heavy as prosecution; 4. The court shall consider whether the defendant was suffering from insanity at the time the offence was committed; 5. To reach such a conclusion, the circumstances that preceded, visited or followed the offence are important. and 6. The prosecution, which fills its burden of objection with legal folly, has only to prove the fundamental fact and rely on the normal presumption of the law that everyone knows the law and the natural consequences of his act. Indian contract law also treats a drunk person in the same way as a person with an unhealthy mind. In Ashfaq Qureshi v. Aysha Qureshi (Nivedita Yadav) (AIR 2010 chh 58), where a Hindu girl was married to a Muslim man, filed a lawsuit on the grounds that she was not in his favor because she was intoxicated at the time of the facts and was unaware of the ongoing conversion and Nikah ceremony.

. . .