Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
PRINCIPLE Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.
FACT A horse was bought for a certain price coupled with a promise to give ₹500 more if the horse proved lucky.
विकल्प
This is a valid agreement
This agreement is void for uncertainty because it is very difficult to determine what luck, bad or good, the horse had brought to the buyer
The agreement is partially valid and partially void
None of the above
Advertisements
उत्तर
This agreement is void for uncertainty because it is very difficult to determine what luck, bad or good, the horse had brought to the buyer
Explanation:
It is a void agreement as it is not certain or capable of being made certain.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Facts: 'A‘ sent a letter making a proposal to 'B‘ to purchase the house of B.
Principle: Terms of any written contract can be proved by producing the written contract only and oral evidence is excluded.
Facts: A gives B receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered to prove payment.
The law of contract is nothing but
LEGAL PRINCIPLE When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach. or which the parties knew, when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Decide, whether and to what extent B is entitled to damages in the following situation.
FACTUAL SITUATION A contracts with B to sell him 1000 tonnes of iron at ₹ 100 per tonne. B tells A that he needs the iron for export purposes, and that he would be selling the iron at ₹ 200 per tonne. A breaks the contract. When the question comes about damages, A says he will pay only ₹ 5000 as damages because the same variety of iron was available in the market at ₹ 105 per tonne. B however contends that he should be given ₹ 100000 because that was the profit which )he would have made had A fulfilled tbe contract B had actually bought the iron at ₹ 110 and had exported it. B is
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
Principle: A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in the position to father was in the will of the other parties, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.
Facts: Ram had advanced a sum of ₹10,000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of ₹30,000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?
A contract enforceable at the instance of one Party is known as
Principle: The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if the court regards it as opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Facts: 'X' promises to obtain for 'Y' employment in the public service and 'Y' promises to pay ₹500000 to 'X'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: When a person represents to another something like a true fact knowing well truly that it is not true," he is guilty of fraud. The person subjected to fraud may avoid an agreement.
Factual Situation: A presents a horse for sale. The' horse is kept on display so that anyone interested could examine it. The horse has a cracked hoof and it is cleverly concealed by the owner. B tells "if you do not deny it, I Shall assume that the horse is sound." A keeps silent. B purchases the horse.
Decision
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterward, wants to file a suit against Mr. X.
DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
Factual Situation: The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ` 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defense of undue influence – stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?
