Capacity to Contract in Nepal (2026): Civil Code 2074 Guide

Capacity to contract is the threshold question in every contract dispute — does the person who signed actually have the legal power to bind themselves? Under the Muluki Civil Code 2074 (2017), which has governed contract law in Nepal since 17 August 2018 (Bhadra 1, 2075 BS) when it replaced the older Contract Act 2056, the rule is set out in Section 506: a contract is only enforceable if both parties were competent to contract at the moment of formation. Three categories of person are deemed incompetent — minors under the age of 18, persons of unsound mind, and persons disqualified by law from contracting. A contract entered by an incompetent party is void from inception, not merely voidable, and it cannot be ratified back to its original date even if the disability later disappears.

This 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's guide covers how capacity works under the Civil Code 2074: who is a minor under Section 504(3), how courts assess soundness of mind, who falls into the "disqualified by law" category, the narrow guardian-on-behalf-of-minor exception under Section 640 that allows valid contracts for a minor's benefit, what happens when a void contract is performed on both sides, ratification on attaining majority, capacity of companies and corporations under the Companies Act 2063, capacity of foreign individuals and entities, and the documentary trail courts examine when capacity is challenged at the District Court.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered contract-law team handling capacity assessment, void-contract litigation, guardianship petitions, corporate capacity opinions and foreign-party contract enforcement across commercial, family and corporate work.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What does "capacity to contract" mean under Nepali law?

Capacity to contract is the legal power of a person to bind themselves to a contractual obligation that the courts will enforce. Under the Muluki Civil Code 2074, capacity is one of the essential elements of every contract — alongside offer, acceptance, free consent, lawful object and lawful consideration. Where capacity is absent, the contract has no legal existence; it is void from the moment of formation under Section 517 and cannot be enforced by either side, no matter how clearly the parties intended to bind themselves.

The capacity rule sits in Section 506 of the Civil Code 2074. The provision states that a person is competent to contract if s/he has attained the age of majority (18 years), is of sound mind, and is not disqualified by any law in force. Anyone failing any one of these three tests at the moment of signing is incompetent, and the contract s/he purports to sign is void. The rule is strict — even a person who would otherwise have capacity but happens to be temporarily incapacitated (e.g. intoxicated to the point of not understanding the transaction) lacks capacity for that contract.

Who is a minor under the Civil Code 2074?

A minor under the Civil Code 2074 is any person below 18 years of age. Section 504(3) defines the age threshold and Section 506 carries it into the capacity rule. The calculation is by date of birth — a person who turns 18 on the contract date is not a minor; a person whose 18th birthday falls the day after the contract date is a minor for the contract. Courts have rejected attempts to use "maturity of mind" or "appearance" as substitutes for chronological age — the rule is the calendar date, and the citizenship certificate or birth registration is the standard proof.

The consequence of a minor signing a contract is straightforward — the contract is void from inception. It cannot be enforced against the minor by the adult counterparty, and equally cannot be enforced against the counterparty by the minor. Money paid by the minor to the adult under such a void contract is generally recoverable; benefits received by the minor (necessaries — food, shelter, medical care) are sometimes the subject of restitutionary claims, but contractual enforcement is not available. The standard practical implication is that adults dealing with someone whose age is uncertain must verify age through the citizenship certificate before contracting.

What counts as "unsound mind" for contractual capacity?

Unsoundness of mind is the second incompetency category under Section 506. The test is functional, not diagnostic — courts ask whether the person was capable of understanding the contract and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect on the person's interests at the moment of signing. A person with a long-standing mental illness who happens to be in a lucid interval can validly contract during that interval; a person who is normally of sound mind but is temporarily impaired (severe intoxication, post-surgical sedation, acute psychotic episode) lacks capacity for any contract signed during the impairment.

Proof of unsoundness in litigation is typically medical — psychiatric reports, hospital records, expert testimony from treating physicians, and contemporaneous evidence of behaviour. Where a person has been formally placed under guardianship by a court order, the order itself is conclusive of incapacity for transactions covered by the order. Without a court order, the party challenging the contract on unsound-mind grounds bears the burden of proving incapacity at the precise moment of signing — a high bar that often turns on whether contemporaneous medical evidence exists.

Who is "disqualified by law" from contracting?

The third incompetency category under Section 506 covers persons disqualified from contracting by any law in force in Nepal. The category is statutory and varies with the legislation creating the disqualification. Common examples include:

• Insolvents and bankrupts. A person formally declared insolvent by a court is restricted in dealing with property and entering binding contracts until the insolvency is discharged.
• Persons under specific criminal convictions. Certain criminal convictions carry collateral disqualifications under the sentencing statute — for example, disqualification from holding certain offices or entering specific kinds of contracts.
• Alien enemies. Citizens of a country with which Nepal is at war are disqualified from entering contracts that benefit the hostile state during the period of hostility.
• Specific statutory bars. Public-servants are barred from certain commercial contracts with their own departments under conflict-of-interest provisions; tax-defaulters may be barred from government tender contracts; and so on.

The disqualification operates only for the period and scope the relevant statute specifies. A discharged bankrupt regains capacity on discharge; a public servant on retirement is no longer subject to the conflict-of-interest bar; a sentenced person on completion of sentence and rehabilitation regains capacity to the extent the sentencing statute permits.

Section 640 — the guardian-for-minor exception

The Civil Code 2074 carves out a narrow exception to the incapacity rule. Section 640 of the Civil Code permits a guardian to enter contracts on behalf of a minor where the contract is for the minor's benefit — typical examples being contracts for the minor's education, medical treatment, maintenance, the operation of a business in which the minor has an inherited share, or the sale of the minor's property when the sale is necessary and benefits the minor's estate. The contract is valid and enforceable, but only against the minor's estate to the extent of the benefit, and the guardian's role is fiduciary.

Where the contract is plainly to the minor's detriment — sale of inheritance below market value, taking on a debt for someone else's benefit, signing away an inheritance claim — it is not protected by Section 640 and falls back into the void category. Disputes about guardian contracts on behalf of minors are common at the District Court when the minor attains majority and challenges historical transactions, particularly land sales. Courts assess the benefit-to-minor question on the facts existing at the time of the contract, not with hindsight.

Consequence of incapacity — void contract under Section 517

Where capacity is absent at formation, the contract is void from inception under Section 517 of the Civil Code 2074. Void contracts produce no legal rights and impose no enforceable obligations. Neither side can sue for damages, specific performance, or any other contractual remedy. The position is fundamentally different from voidable contracts under Section 518 (coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation) — voidable contracts are valid until the wronged party elects to rescind, while void contracts never had legal existence and require no rescission step.

Where money or property has passed under a void contract, the recipient generally holds it without a contractual entitlement, and restitutionary principles allow the payer to recover. Where a minor has received goods or services constituting "necessaries" (food, shelter, medical care, education), the supplier may have a restitutionary claim against the minor's estate for the reasonable value of the necessaries — but this is restitution, not contractual enforcement, and the recovery is limited to the necessaries' value, not the contract price.

Ratification on attaining majority — why it doesn't work

A common practical question is whether a minor, on attaining 18 years of age, can "ratify" a contract s/he signed while still a minor — making the originally-void contract retrospectively valid. Under the Civil Code 2074 framework, this is not permissible. A void contract cannot be ratified back to its original date. The minor on attaining majority is free to enter a fresh contract on the same terms with the same counterparty, but that fresh contract operates only prospectively from the date of the new agreement, not retroactively from the original signing.

The practical consequence is that adults dealing with someone close to the age of majority face a real risk — if the counterparty turns out to be a minor, the contract is void, and the adult cannot cure the defect by waiting until the counterparty turns 18 and then claiming ratification. The only safe course is to defer signing until majority is reached and then enter a fresh contract. Counsel often recommend this in land-sale and high-value-loan scenarios where the counterparty's age is uncertain.

Capacity of companies and corporations

Companies and corporations contract through their registered representatives — directors and authorised officers — and their capacity is governed by the Companies Act 2063 and the entity's memorandum and articles of association. A company has capacity to enter any contract within the scope of its memorandum (its stated objects); a contract outside the memorandum is ultra vires and historically was treated as void, although modern commercial practice and Companies Act provisions have softened the rule for transactions with good-faith third parties.

For commercial counterparties dealing with a Nepali company, the practical checklist is: (a) verify registration at the Office of the Company Registrar; (b) review the memorandum to confirm the contract is within the objects; (c) verify the signatory's authority through a board resolution or articles-of-association power; (d) check the company is not in liquidation or under any court order restricting its capacity. Skipping these checks is the source of many enforcement failures when the company later defaults and the counterparty discovers the signatory lacked authority. See our companion guide on types of companies in Nepal for the entity-form overview and company registration in Nepal for the incorporation process.

Capacity of foreign individuals and entities

Capacity of a foreign individual or entity is assessed primarily by the law of their home jurisdiction. A foreign company incorporated in India, Singapore, or the UAE has capacity to the extent its incorporating jurisdiction permits, and that capacity is recognised by Nepali courts for purposes of contracts performed in or affecting Nepal. A foreign individual has capacity according to their home jurisdiction's age-of-majority and competence rules — most jurisdictions set 18 as the age threshold, but some are 21, and the relevant law applies.

Practical issues arise on enforcement in Nepal. The Nepali District Court has jurisdiction over disputes involving foreign parties where the contract is performed in Nepal or the property is in Nepal. The foreign party's capacity at the date of contract is a question of evidence — typically established through the foreign party's incorporation certificate (for entities) or passport and home-jurisdiction proof (for individuals). Where the foreign party's capacity is challenged, expert evidence on foreign law may be required.

Proving and challenging capacity at the District Court

When capacity is in dispute, the evidence courts examine includes: citizenship certificate or birth registration to prove age, medical and psychiatric records to prove (or rebut) unsound mind, court orders or gazette notifications to prove statutory disqualification, board resolutions and articles to prove corporate authority, and passports and home-jurisdiction certificates for foreign parties. The burden of proving incapacity lies on the party asserting it — usually the party seeking to escape the contract — and the standard is the balance of probabilities applicable to civil litigation.

The two-year limitation under Section 544 of the Civil Code 2074 applies to contractual claims generally, but a void contract has no enforceable rights to extinguish — so an incapacity defence can be raised at any time the counterparty attempts to enforce the contract. Where the incapacity-defending party wants to recover money or property already passed under the void contract, the restitutionary claim has its own limitation framework under the Civil Code's general provisions.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with capacity issues?

Alpine Law Associates handles capacity issues across the contract lifecycle. We advise on capacity verification before signing — checking citizenship for individuals, memorandum and resolutions for companies, foreign-law opinions for cross-border parties. We litigate void-contract disputes at the District Court, on both the challenging and defending sides — particularly common in land disputes where a transaction was historically entered into by or on behalf of a minor, and in commercial cases where a company's signatory turns out to have lacked authority.

For clients on the defending side challenging a contract on incapacity grounds, we structure the file with the documentary evidence courts require — citizenship certificates, medical records, court orders, board records. For clients on the suing side, we run the counter-arguments — necessaries doctrine for minors, ratification of subsequent acts, the Section 640 guardian-benefit defence. As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we coordinate capacity work with related contract formation, breach and remedies engagements in a single counsel relationship.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026