“Subscribe to new marine, life, fire or other contracts or insurance with or for the benefit of an enemy; not to accept or have insurance, a risk arising from an insurance policy (including reinsurance) that was contracted or benefited with an enemy before the outbreak of war. “Provided that transactions to or from such a branch are not treated as transactions of or with an enemy when an enemy has a branch locally located in British territory, allied or neutral and which is not a neutral territory in Europe,” before addressing the points I would like to make to the Attorney General, I would perhaps like to address to the Prime Minister the issue of the allocation for the wives of soldiers. The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that the maximum of 22 s. would be for four children. In fact, I just heard from the Minister of War in another place that it would be two more. for each additional child. I think it is very important, in the public interest, that these two statements be put in place as soon as possible. The points I would like to make to the Attorney General are two that stem from last Thursday`s debate. Some time ago, I asked the Prime Minister whether, in the very special circumstances of the time, law enforcement could be allowed to make a statement for the good of the business community with respect to the Foreign Contracts Act. A large number of contracts were concluded by the commercial community in that country, in London, Manchester, etc. before the beginning of the war, and it is impossible for anyone to inform these traders of what the law is in this area. No court has ruled in 998, at least for sixty years, and 60 years ago, there are only one or two decisions under American law. I asked the Prime Minister whether it was not possible, in the very exceptional circumstances, for the Crown authorities to make a statement so that the courts could not make a precise decision to our merchants and our trading communities by the end of the war that the position be made as clear as possible.
In India, the agreement with a minor is invalid of initio means cancelled from departure. In Mohri bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose, the Privy Council held that “the law requires all contracting parties to be competent,” and the law provides, among other things, in Section 10 that a person who, because of his childhood, is unable to enter into a contract within the meaning of the law.