Q.Under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if genuine necessaries are supplied to a minor, who (if anyone) can be held liable to reimburse their value?
(A) The minor personally, out of his own future income
(B) The minor's property, but never the minor personally
(C) The minor's parents, in every case
(D) No one — the supplier has no remedy at all

Section 68 creates a quasi-contractual claim against the minor's property, deliberately stopping short of personal liability.

Section 68 is not a contractual remedy at all (since the minor's agreement is void) — it is a quasi-contractual claim allowing reimbursement, out of the minor's PROPERTY, for the value of genuine necessaries actually supplied. It deliberately never creates personal liability for the minor.

Option-by-option analysis:

• (A) Incorrect — personal liability is exactly what Section 68 avoids imposing on a minor.
• (B) Correct — only the minor's property answers the claim, and only for genuine necessaries. …