The law provides for who can enter into a contract and who cannot when it comes to capacity. These include minors, the mentally ill or the elderly with symptoms of dementia. English contract law is the main source of its Indian counterpart. Even then, there is some dissimilarity between the two. The author will continue to try to analyze these differences in this article. The mental capacity to contract is one of the most important elements of a contract. All contracting parties must be mentally capable of entering into a contract, otherwise the contract can be considered void and terminated. It is important that all Parties are mentally capable. 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 events and was unaware of the ongoing conversion and Nikah`s ceremony. And also that she had not lived with this man for a single day. She proved all the facts mentioned, and therefore the marriage was annulled because she was drunk, so she was not able to make a decision and form a rational judgment regarding her interests. In the course of this research, it is found that Indian contract law is heavily borrowed from its English counterpart, but the two differ in some respects, and the English model seems to have a broader scope than its Indian counterpart. Under English law, persons identified as having an intellectual disability are protected against the conclusion of contracts. Now the question arises, who is not in a position under English law? A person governed by English law is unable to make a decision on the matter himself at the time of the facts because of a deficiency or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain. It does not matter whether the impairment or disruption is permanent or temporary. A person may not be declared incapacitated solely on the basis of his or her age or appearance or on the basis of assumptions arising from his or her behaviour. A person is considered incapable of making decisions for himself if he does not understand the information relevant to the decision, does not store this information, uses this information for decision-making or does not communicate his decision through speech, sign language or other means. A person is not declared incapacitated solely because he or she is able to retain information relevant to a decision for a short period of time, in this case information, including information about the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision in one way or another or the failure to make the decision.

According to this article, the person entering into the contract must therefore be a person who understands what he is doing and who is able to form a rational judgment on whether what he will do is in his interest or not. The crucial point is therefore whether he concludes the contract after having understood it and having decided to conclude this contract after having formed a rational judgment on his interest. This does not mean that man has to suffer madness to prevent him from entering into a contract. A person may appear to behave normally, but at the same time, they may not be able to make their own judgment as to whether the action they will take is in their best interest or not. ”It is possible that a person who has already been declared mentally incompetent has times when they are clear. If a contract is concluded at a certain time, they can be held fully liable for the contract if it can be proven that he had knowledge of the company, the consequences and the reason for the creation of the contract. Mental incapacity is a legal illness for those who cannot enter into a contract because of their mental disability. In most jurisdictions, mental performance is the level of ability to fully understand the meaning and impact of a contract. If a person is unable to fully understand their legal rights and obligations in a contract, they are not legally able to enter into a contract.

In some states, courts measure the person`s ability to judge whether or not to enter into the agreement. When a drunk person enters into a contract, it can either be enforceable, i.e. held to the fullest extent of the law, or be questionable by the drunk person. In this article, Abhishek Mishra discusses the ability to enter into contracts with an unhealthy person. From a business perspective, there are a few exceptions to the law. A minor may enter into a contract to purchase basic necessities such as food, shelter and clothing. In some states, minors can also obtain credit cards and bank accounts. Minors are responsible for these contracts because they are legally binding. A minor may also cancel a contract without capacity while being a minor. If the minor reaches the age of 18 and has not declared the contract null and void, he can no longer become disabled. These requirements are necessary so that one party does not attempt to exploit another. Contracts are an important obligation, and some people will not have the legal capacity or the ability to enter into them.

Minors do not have the opportunity to conclude contracts. In general, no one under the age of 18 can sign a contract. Any contract signed by a minor is not valid. On the other hand, under Indian law, a person with an unhealthy mind, if he is in a state of insolidity, is not allowed to enter into contracts. The consent of an unhealthy person is void, Amina Bibi v. Saiyid Yusuf (ILR (1922) 44 All 748). However, a person who is generally of sound mind but sometimes unhealthy cannot enter into the contract if he is of an unhealthy mind, while a person who is generally of an unhealthy mind but sometimes becomes healthy can contract at these intervals if he is healthy. In the case of nilima Ghosh v. Harjeet Kaur (AIR 2011 Del 104), it was discussed that the most important thing in declaring an agreement null and void is whether the person concerned suffered from an intellectual disability at the time of the execution of the agreement. Indian law has a different view on this issue than English law. Under English law, an unhealthy person is capable of contracting, although the contract may be cancelled at his or her option 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.

It becomes binding on him only if he confirms it, Imperial Loan Co v. Gibson ((1845) 13 M&W 623). Even in English law, a madman`s contract is not void. .