Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: An agreement entered into by way of a wager/bet is unenforceable in law.
Fact Situation: Thomas is very good at predicting the outcomes of cricket matches. Raja and Hoja give him rupees thousand each to enable him to bet with others about the outcome of a cricket match. Thomas wins rupees three lakh after betting three thousand rupees.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Thomas must share rupees three lakh with Raja and Hoja equally.
Thomas must return rupees thousand each to Raja and Hoja.
Thomas need not share the three lakh with Raja and Hoja since it is the outcome of an unenforceable agreement.
If Thomas does not pay them rupees two lakh each, Raja and Hoja can sue him to recover their share.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Thomas need not share the three lakh with Raja and Hoja since it is the outcome of an unenforceable agreement.
Explanation:
Effects of wagering agreement-According to the section 30 of contract act, "agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made". Thus in the case presented before us, there is no agreement and even If there was an agreement, it was by way of wager, so it is void under section 30 of the contract act. Hence option (c) is the most appropriate and Thomas is not required to share his winnings with Raja and Hoja as there was no enforceable agreement between them.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud.
Facts: A sells to B (A‘s daughter who is a minor) a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the unsoundness of the horse.
A contract creates
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 herein below 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 cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not a party to it. However, where some benefit is conferred on the third party by the contract itself, their third party can be allowed to enforce that contract to get such benefit.
FACTS Dinesh is liable to pay ₹50000 to Suresh. In order to discharge this liability, Dinesh enters into a contract with Ramesh by which Dinesh sells his car to Ramesh for ₹1 lac. Ramesh takes the delivery of the car and promises/assures to pay its price at the earliest. Dinesh separately informs Suresh about this contract for his satisfaction. Ramesh fails to pay the car's price. Suresh wants to join Dinesh in filing suit against Ramesh for the recovery of the price of the car. Whether Suresh is entitled to do so?
The decision of a High Court is
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: When there is a breach of contract, the resulting damages will have to be paid by the party breaching the contract to the aggrieved party. However, the parties are free to agree as to damages payable in advance in case there is a breach of contract.
Facts: Mr. Ramesh entered into a contract with Mr. Ramakrishna for selling his green Alto Car for Rs. 3 lakhs. Mr. Ramakrishna was to pay Rs. 3 lakhs on or before 25th April 2005 and take possession of the car. The party failing to honour the contract has to pay Rs. 40,000/- as damages to the other party. Mr. Ramakrishna has not performed his part of the contract. Mr. Ramesh is claiming Rs. 40,000/-
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: A contract procured by coercion is bad under the Indian Contract Act. Coercion is defined as committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence under the India Penal Code.
Facts: A wanted his wife B to part with some landed property given to her by her father. B resisted fearing that her husband would squander it away. A threatened her that if she does not sign the deed transferring the property to him (i.e., A), he would commit suicide. B signed the deed. Subsequently, she challenged the deed on the ground that the deed was bad under law.
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: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain about that.
Facts: ‘A’ was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by one’ company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to ‘A’, ‘A’ claims damages for the injuries caused to him.
Principle: A contract that is duly supported by real and lawful consideration is valid not withstanding the fact that the consideration is inadequate. The quantum of consideration is for the parties to decide at the time of making a contract and not for the courts (to decide) when the contract is sought to be enforced. An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate, but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the court in determining the question of whether the consent of the promisor was freely given.
Facts: 'A' agrees to sell his mobile phone worth ₹20000 for ₹100 only to ‘B’ as the content is freely given.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
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?
Principle: When, at the desire of one person, any other person has done or abstained from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Facts: X, the uncle of Y, made a promise to pay him an amount of ₹1,00,000/- as a reward if Y quits smoking and drinking within one year. Y quit smoking and drinking within six months.
