Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: A person, who is usually mad, but occasionally not mad, may make a contract when he is not mad.
Facts: 'A‘ generally remains in the state of madness and rarely becomes capable of understanding anything.
विकल्प
A can make a contract.
A can never make a contract.
A can make a contract at any time whenever he pleases.
A can make a contract only for his own benefit.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A can make a contract.
Explanation:
A can make the contract is evident from the principle that a person can make a contract when he is not mad. In this case on rare occasions when A is not mad, he can make a contract.
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.
Legal Principle: Agreements in restraint of trade are void and unenforceable.
Fact Situation: Manu has been working as a blacksmith in his village for many decades. Somu has been undergoing training with him for the past three years. After his training is over, Somu enters into an agreement with Manu that he will not start a competing business in the same village while Manu is alive.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Consideration is something that moves from the promisee to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right, interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
2. An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterward.
Factual Situation: The defendant, Mr. Dhawan, wrote to the complainant, Mr. Chaman, with an offer to sell his house to him for Rs. 8,00,000. He promised that he would keep this offer open to him until Friday. However, on a Thursday Mr. Dhawan accepted an offer from a third party and sold his house. According to Mr. Chaman, he was going to accept this offer but had not said anything to Mr. Dhawan because he understood that he had time until Friday. Mr. Dhawan communicated to Mr. Chaman that the offer had been withdrawn, through a friend to the complainant. After hearing this, Mr. Chaman went to find the defendant, informing of his acceptance of the offer. Thereafter, the complainant brought an action for specific performance and breach of contract against the defendant. Whether the defendant's promise to keep the offer open until Friday morning was a binding contract between the parties and whether he was allowed to revoke this offer and sell to a third party?
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 Generally, an agreement without consideration is not valid. Therefore in order to make a valid agreement some consideration which may have some value in the eyes of law, is essentially required.
FACTS William has an old car of which he makes seldom uses. He voluntarily enters into an agreement with Smith to sell this car for rupees ten thousand. Thereafter one Anson approaches William and offers to buy that car for rupees one lac as the car was one which Anson has been searching for long. Now William wants to cancel his agreement with Smith and refuses to deliver the car to him saying that consideration (price) for the car promised by Smith is negligible and, therefore, agreement with him cannot be said to be the valid one.
Sheela, an adult married woman, agreed to live in adultery with Rahul and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, Rahul, an adult agreed to pay Sheela ₹ 5000 per month for living in adultery and ₹ 5000 per month for housekeeping, the agreement is
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Tapan was a dealer in mustard oil. The Government of India by an order issued under the Essential Commodities Act fixed the price of mustard oil, and also the quantity which a person can buy from the dealer. Tapan carried on his business under this order for a while, but he refused to pay sales tax on his sale transactions on the ground that these were not the contracts freely entered into by him.
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: In order to be eligible to appear in the semester examination, a student is required to attend, under all circumstances, at least 70% of the total classes held in that semester as per University rules.
Facts: Anand, an economically poor but a very brilliant student of LLB final semester, while going to his University by cycle received some leg injuries in a road accident. Consequently, Anand could not attend his classes for one week as he was advised to rest by his doctor for that period. Due to this absence from the university, Anand failed to have 70% attendance essential to appear in the examination and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination by the University authorities. Anand challenges this decision in the court of law.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An agreement is void if its object is unlawful.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Sunil had a rich uncle who owned prime property in Chennai and had a lot of money in the bank. Being the only heir. Sunil was sure that he would inherit the property. One day, the uncle called him to his room and announced that he planned to marry again. This angered Sunil and he plans to murder his uncle so he hired Anuj, a murderer, and entered into a contract with him to kill his uncle. Sunil agreed to pay ₹10 lakhs to Anuj and even paid 5 lakhs as advance. The following night Anuj entered the uncle's house intending to kill him. On reaching there, he realised that Sunil's uncle was already dead so he left without doing anything. The next day, after the post mortem report, it transpired that Sunil's uncle had died due to heart attack. Now, Sunil wants to recover the advance from Anuj. Will he succeed?
DECISION:
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Acceptance must be given only by the person to whom the offer is made. 2. Communication of acceptance to a person who did not make the offer does not bind the offeror.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Pal sold his business to Sam without disclosing it to his customers. Mani, an old customer sent an order for goods to Pal by name. Sam, the new owner, executed the order. Mani refuses to accept the goods from Sam as he intended to deal only with Pal. In a suit by Sam against Mani:
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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised the defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about the existence of RAF Wittering near his property.
Decision:
