As a general rule, the nullity of a minor should be completely free of any effect (unless the contract benefits a minor). Since there is a contract, all the effects of a minor agreement must be developed independently of any contract. This case gave rise to a pioneering judgment on the effect of the agreement of the miners and resolved the question of whether the consent of the minors was not adjudicated or not. In that case, the plaintiff (Dharmodas Ghose), as a minor, mortgaged his assets to a money lender, the defendant (Brahmo Dutt), to obtain a loan of 10,500 people. But at the time, the lender`s lawyer was aware of his minority. The lender was then sued by the minor to ask for repayment of the loan. Brahmo Dutt had died at the time of the call and was therefore pursued by his executors. The accused argued that where a person deliberately pushed a person or allowed something to be true by his or her actions, he or his representatives can no longer specifically challenge that fact in the future.  This defines the law of Estoppel. But minors are an exception to this rule and they can take advantage of minorities when they misrepreses their age at the time of the agreement. In vainkuntarama Pillai/Authimoolam Chettiar, the Madras Supreme Court ruled that a minor who is unable to enter into a contract cannot be held liable and that Estoppel`s right cannot repeal it.
The special exceptions to the contractual agreement of minors are: 5) No concrete implementation of the contractual agreement: the party and the minors in a minor contract cannot be called to the concrete implementation of an agreement. From the outset, a minor`s contract was not concluded because he does not have the vision, knowledge and skills to enter into a legally binding contract. Unless necessary, learned and guardianship agreement, the consent of minors is a dead letter and has no influence on the parties. A minor may be admitted to the benefits of the contract, but cannot bear any debts. Since an agreement becomes compliant with the contract only with the free consent of the parties concerned, which is legally applicable, an agreement with the “incompetent” minor becomes denied or invalidated. Ratification means accepting previous acts. It can only be carried out for acts that were valid at the time of the contract. A minor cannot ratify an agreement reached during the minority if he reaches the age of majority.
This is because the agreement is early on, that is, from the beginning, and cannot be ratified thereafter. A new agreement must be reached in order to obtain a majority. An uncompised contract is a dead letter that cannot come to life and cannot be a valid consideration. Suraj Narain v Sukhu Aheer, is a famous case in this regard. In this case, a person borrowed money when he was a minor and then made a new promise after obtaining the majority to repay the sum at the same time as the interest. The question was whether the consideration received during the minority could be a good consideration after obtaining a majority. The Supreme Court of Allahabad has ruled that the consideration of a person during the minority cannot be a valid consideration once the majority has been reached and cannot be valid for a new promise. The verpromistor was not held responsible for such a promise, which constitutes a non-agreement. In Sadiq Ali Khan vs. Jai Kishori, a minor executed an act for the offended party that does not know its minority.
The interviewee, the minor, had told him that he was a major, and the offended party followed this presentation. The law of the agreement manages its protection for the defendant despite its misrepresentation.