When we learn something new, the first question that comes to mind is why we need it and how applicabilic it is in our daily lives. So before we discuss our subject, we need to know the purpose of the treaty. The fundamental objective of contract law is to create a framework in which individuals can freely conclude. The word “free” means that there should be full and free consent of the parties. Consent can only be free if it is rational and voluntary. Reasonable consent can only be granted if a person is healthy. The author in this article will attempt to make an analysis of the role of the insolidity of the mind in the case of a treaty using laws, jurisprudence and judgments with regard to English and Indian law. On the other hand, under Indian law is a person with an unhealthy mind, if it is state of non-solidity is not competent to bear. The consent of a person of the unhealthy mind is invalid, Amina Bibi v.
Saiyid Yusuf (ILR (1922) 44 All 748). However, a person who is generally of a healthy mind but sometimes of unhealthy mind cannot make the contract if he is of unhealthy mind, while a person who is generally of unhealthy mind, but who is sometimes healthy, can tighten in these intervals when he is healthy. In Nilima Ghosh v. Harjeet Kaur (AIR 2011 del 104), the most important issue in the declaration of an agreement was whether the person in question was mentally disabled at the time the agreement was implemented. 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/.