According to this section, the person entering into the contract must be a person who understands what he or she is doing and is able to rationally judge whether what he or she will do is in his or her best interests. The section also notes that the inconsistency of the mind can arise from madness, idiocy or drunkenness, etc. Contracts with these individuals are void if they are concluded at the time the person was in a non-solid mental state. But the succession of these people. is responsible, in accordance with Section 68, for the needs provided to him or their loved ones, to whom. they are legally supportive. As has already been said, it is necessary, for a valid contract, for a valid contract, that each contracting party has a “healthy mind”. The burden of proof rests with the party who asserts that it was not sound at the time of the contract. Indian law has a different view than English law in this area. Under English law, a non-solid person is contractual, although the contract can be avoided after his election if he complies with the jurisdiction that he has not been able to understand the contract and the other party has been aware of it.
Under English law, the contract is therefore, once elected, not abounded. It will only be binding on him if he has confirmed it, Imperial Loan Co v. Stone ((1892) 1 QB 599 (CA)), in this case Lord Esher stated that a mentally disturbed person can only set aside a contract with a person with a healthy mind: “If a person enters into a contract and then asserts, that she was so insane that she did not know what he was doing, and the assertion proves that the treaty engages him in all respects, whether he is executed or executed as if he had been cleaned up in his work, unless he could prove that the person with whom he moved was so well aware of him that he could not understand it. What it was about. The position of English law is the same for drunks as it is for a person with a mental disorder; Such a contract is not igacht, but, at the choice of the person who entered into the contract in such a drunken state, it is not to be fulfilled that he does not know what he has done, and this fact is known to the other contractor, Surrey/. Gibson (1845) 13 M-W 623). Even under English law, a madman`s contract is not void. In Campbell v. Hooper ((1855) 3 Sm-G 153), where a mortgage lender sought a decree for the repayment of the debt and evidence showed that Mortgagor was insane when contractually agreed and in addition to the mortgage was not aware. It was found that a simple act of insanity could not invalidate a contract. If the other party gets away with it, it is cancelled. It is therefore clear that, under English law, the most important thing is that the other person with whom the unhealthy man moved in was aware that the former is in a non-solid mental state.
In the Halsburye laws of England it is said: “The general theory of the law with regard to the actions that are made, the treaties of the uns anything strong mind are generally considered invalid; In other words, (subject to exceptions), there can be no contract by an unhealthy person. Let us now turn to the definition of the healthy mind with respect to contract law in India.