Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B‘s girlfriend.
विकल्प
B can enforce the agreement.
B cannot enforce the agreement.
A can enforce the agreement.
Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.
Advertisements
उत्तर १
B can enforce the agreement.
Explanation:
For the free consent under section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, when it is not caused by
i. Coercion as under Section 15
ii. Undue influences as Section 16
iii. Fraud as defined Section 17
iv. Misrepresentation as defined Section 18
v. Mistake subject to provision of Section 20, 21 & 22
The reasonable conclusion is drawn that as the consent B is not free, B can enforce the agreement.
उत्तर २
B can enforce the agreement.
Explanation:
In this case, B can enforce the contract even if the contract was given under the pressure of gunpoint, that is, there was no free will. The enforceability is based on the principle that the agreement can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free. In other words, B did not have the free will when the contract was entered into, but he has the option to enforce it, that is, B can enforce it.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Voidable contract is one
LEGAL PRINCIPLE The contract after the death of one party can be continued if it is ratified by the surviving party.
FACTUAL SITUATION Vishal, a famous artist was requested by Arun, an industrialist to draw the portrait of his deceased wife and paid ₹ 20,000/- in advance and agreed to pay when the work was completed, a sum of ₹2 lakhs·. When the portrait was half drawn, Vishal died due to a heart attack. His son also a fine artist completed his father's work and. demanded the money from Arun. Aron refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal's son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
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?
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 An agreement is void to the extent that it restricts absolutely a party from enforcing his contractual rights by usual proceedings in any ordinary court.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B entered into a transaction in Delhi for sale of goods based in Delhi. The contract stated that in case of a dispute, only civil courts in Chennai would have jurisdiction. Neither A nor B resided or carried on business in Chennai.
A owned a truck and he had hired B to drive it. On one of its trips. C flagged the truck down and asked to be dropped to a nearby city. B agreed to do so for a small amount of money. The truck met with an accident en route, in which C was badly injured. C sued A for damages.
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: The object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law; is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; is fraudulent; involves or implies injury to the person or property of another person; the court regards it as immoral; it is opposed to public policy.
Factual Situation: A was arrested by the police for committing an offence and was subsequently granted bail by the Court. One of the conditions imposed by the Court for granting bail was that A arranges for a surety for ₹50,000. A approached B to be a surety. B agreed but insisted that they enter into a contract whereby A would deposit ₹50, 000 into B's account, which would be returned to A by B after the case was over.
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 the parties to an agreement agree on the same thing in the same sense, there arises legally binding obligations between them.
Facts: Zaverilals antique shop was a well-known shop in the locality. Taradevi, a socialite of the locality, went to the shop and she was attracted by an earthen jar on display. Zaverilal explained to her that the jar belonged to the Hoysaia period; and despite its earthern composition, it was very strong and almost unbreakable. Taradevi replied to him that she was so captivated by the jar that it was immaterial to her as to which period, it belonged. She bought the jar and came home. She placed the jar in a prominent place in her drawing-room. One of her friends, an art critique, who happened to visit her, told her that the jar was not at all an Antique, but Taradevi did not bother about it. One day, it accidentally fell down and broke into pieces. Taradevi took up the matter with Zaverilal that his both statements were wrong and therefore, he should pay damages to her
Principle: Acceptance should be made while the offer is still subsisting. The offer or is free to retract his offer at any time before his offer gets accepted by the offeree. Once the offer is withdrawn or is lapsed, it is not open to being accepted so as to give rise to a contract. Similarly, if time is prescribed within which the offer is to be accepted, then the offer must be accepted within the prescribed time. And if no time is prescribed, then the acceptance must be made within a reasonable time. 'What is a reasonable time', is a question of fact which is to be determined by taking into account all the relevant facts and surrounding circumstances.
Facts: 'X' makes an offer to 'Y' to sell his equipment for ₹1000.00. No time is specified for acceptance. 'Y' sends his reply two years after receiving the offer.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Amita invited Bina to her house for dinner. Bina accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Bina's failure to attend, Amita filed a suit against Bina for the price of non-consumed food. Will the law enforce this agreement?
DECISION:
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?
