On the other hand, under Indian law, a person with an unhealthy mind, if he is in a state of insensitivity, is not able to enter into contracts. The consent of a person with an unhealthy mind is void, Amina Bibi v. Saiyid Yusuf (ILR (1922) 44 All 748). However, a person who is generally sane, but sometimes unhealthy, cannot enter into the contract if he is of an unhealthy mind, while a person who is usually of an unhealthy mind but sometimes becomes healthy can contract at these intervals when he is healthy. In the case of Nilima Ghosh v. Harjeet Kaur (AIR 2011 Del 104), it was discussed that the most important thing for the annulment of an agreement is whether the person concerned had an intellectual disability at the time the agreement was concluded. “According to this article, the person entering into the contract must 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 crucial point is therefore whether he concludes the contract after having understood it and decided to conclude this contract, after having formed a rational judgment on his interests. 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. “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 issue, 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 the full and free consent of the parties. Consent can only be free if it is rational and deliberate. Rational consent can only be given if a person has a clear mind. Through this article, the author will attempt to carry out an analysis of the role of the insensitivity of the mind in the case of a contract using laws, jurisprudences and judgments relating to English and Indian law. Mental incompetence in contract matters is effective only if the person has been officially declared incompetent by a court. This incompetence must be so serious that a guardian must be appointed.
The guardian is the only one who can enter into a contract on behalf of that person. A: Rajiv has reached the age of majority. In addition, doctors state that it is for time intervals with a clear mind. Therefore, he can conclude a contract in the time when his mind is healthy, that is, when he has the ability to join forces. Even if a minor falsely claims to be of legal age and takes out a loan or signs a contract, he or she may invoke the minority. The rule of confiscation cannot be applied to minors. He can appeal to his minority to defend himself. 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. Under English law, persons identified as having an intellectual disability are protected against the conclusion of contracts.
Now the question arises as to who does not have the capacity in English law. A person under English law does not have the capacity to act on a matter if, at the time of the facts, he or she is unable to make a decision on the matter because of an alteration 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 conduct. A person is considered incapable of making decisions for himself if he does not understand the information relevant to the decision, retains this information, uses this information for decision-making or communicates his decision through conversations, sign language or other means. A person is not declared unfit 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 on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision in one way or another or on the non-execution of the decision.