Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
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.
विकल्प
Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed
Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed
Oral evidence is always allowed to prove all facts
Oral evidence is generally disallowed
Advertisements
उत्तर
Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed
Explanation:
Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed. Receipt of money is only on acknowledgment, not a written contract, and oral evidence is excluded from the written contracts. Therefore, the oral evidence of the receipt of payment is allowed.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Voidable contract is one
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 by 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.banks 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 defence 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.
Whether the consent to offer the flat as financial security obtained through undue influence?
Which one of the following conditions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization has been wrongly listed?
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 and B, a Hindu couple were married to each other. Owing to differences between them, they decided to get divorced. They entered into a contract laying down the conditions that both parties had to adhere to. One of the terms of the contract was that their children would not be entitled to claim the ancestral property of A, the husband.
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
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: Law does not take notice of trifles.
Facts: A proposes to his neighbour B that they both should go together for a morning walk. B agrees to the proposal and it is decided that both of them would meet at a particular point at 6 AM from where they would set off for the morning walk. In spite of the agreement, B does not turn up. A waits for him at 6 AM every day for a continuous period of seven days. Thereafter he files a suit against B claiming damages for the agony and mental torture suffered by him. Decide.
Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?
Principle: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.
Facts: 'X' sells a stolen bike to 'Y' 'Y' buys it in good faith. As regards the title to bike, which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An agreement is void if the court regards it as opposed to the public policy.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Sunita, while her husband Shankar was alive, promised to marry Neel in the event of Shankar's death. Subsequently, Shankar died, but Sunita refused to marry Noel. Neel sues Sunita for damages for breach of promise.
DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer, When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus and idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
2. Consideration is something that moves from the promise 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.
3. Contractual rights and liabilities are exclusive to the parties to contract.
4. There are few exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contracts like agency, trust, assignment, and third party beneficiary.
5. A quasi-contract is a contract that is created by the court when no such official contract exists between the parties to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched, or from benefitting from the situation when he/she does not deserve to do so.
Facts: Nandini, by deed of gift, made over the certain landed property to Reena, her daughter. By the terms of the deed, which was registered, it was stipulated that an annuity of ₹ 3,000 should be paid every year to Subhashini, sister of Nandini. Reena executed in Subhashini’s favour an agreement promising to give effect to stipulation. The annuity was, however, not paid and Subhashini sued to recover it. Reena is defending herself by claiming that there is no valid contract with Subhashini. Which of the following can be ground/s for the court’s decision?
I. A promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the promise or any other person.
II Only a person who is a party to a contract may demand the execution of that contract from other parties. But if there is a third-party beneficiary to the contract then it is enforced to the extent of his\her benefit.
III. The agreement is valid as both Reena and Subhashini agreed to it on the same thing in the same sense.
IV. There is no privity of contract as Subhashini has furnished no consideration. Reena had promised to Subhashini but consideration was furnished by Nandini.
