Major Differences in Minors’ Contracts: A Comparative Analysis into the Validity of Contracts with Minors in the Sport and Entertainment Industry

In Australia and the UK, contracts with minors in sports and entertainment are not uncommon. Generally, such contracts are voidable at the option of the minor. However, when contracts fall within the category of beneficial service, as is the case with most professional sports or entertainment contracts, they will be enforceable against the minor. Indian courts do not prescribe to this view holding contracts with minors, void ab initio and unenforceable against contractual parties, with few exceptions. The policy rationale is embedded in protecting minors from their own rash decisions and preventing unscrupulous parties from taking advantage of a minor’s nascent mental capacity. By analysing divergent approaches on the validity of minors’ contracts in three common law jurisdictions—Australia, India and the UK—the authors highlight inadequacies in legal pronouncements by Indian courts. In India, the legal non-existence and unenforceability of service contracts with minors renders it futile for them or their representatives from negotiating favourable contractual terms beyond welfare measures provided by law as these are unlikely to be upheld. This paper argues that India’s narrow approach fails to acknowledge practical realities of minors’ participation in the increasingly commercialised sports and entertainment industry. In light of more practical approaches in other common law jurisdictions, the authors set out policy recommendations and suggest reforms to the legal position on minors’ capacity to contract in India.