Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in the position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party.
Facts: A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Ten Lac Only) for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Five Lac Only) and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment, the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay.
विकल्प
The contract is enforceable against the doctor.
The contract is enforceable against the patient.
The contract is not enforceable.
The contract is not enforceable against the patient.
Advertisements
उत्तर
The contract is enforceable against the patient.
Explanation:
This contract is enforceable against the patient as evident from the principle, “the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate decision of the other party.” In this case, the doctor dominated the decision of the patient. So, if the doctor wants, he can enforce the decision against the patient.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- Offer is a proposal made by one person to another to do any act or abstain from doing it. The person who makes the offer is known as the promisor or offeror and the person to whom an offer is made is known as the promisee or the offeree.
- A contract comes into being by the acceptance of an offer. When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his consent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus ad idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
Factual Situation: Tejas drove his car to a car park named Super Car Park (SCP).Outside the car park, the prices were displayed and a notice stated cars were parked at the owner's risk. An automatic ticket vending machine provided a ticket, a barrier was raised and Tejas parked his car. In small print on the ticket, it was stated that the ticket is issued subject to conditions displayed on the premises. On a pillar opposite to the machine was a notice stating the owners would not be liable for any injuries occurring on their premises. Tejas met with an accident and sought damages from SCP. SCP denied any liability on the basis of the exclusion clause which was mentioned in the notice on the pillar. Whether there are an offer and acceptance of the exclusion clause?
X duly posts a letter of acceptance to Y. But the letter is lost in transit by the negligence of the Post Office
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: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself cannot be enforced by a court of law.
Facts: Ramesh agrees with his girlfriend Shilpa to pluck stars from the sky through his extraordinary will power, and bring them down on Earth for her within a week. After the expiry of one week, Shilpa filed a suit for damages against Ramesh for the breach of contract as Ramesh failed to perform his promise.
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 party to a contract has refused to perform or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the other party may put an end to the contract.
Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B started a partnership firm for providing vehicle repair services. C approached the firm for getting his car repaired and noticed that only B was present in the office. C informed the problem and B started repairing the car. While B was repairing, he filled petrol instead of oil in the engine. As a consequence, a small blast occurred and damaged the car. Now, C sued both A and B for the damage so caused. Decide.
DECISION:
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
1. Consideration must be of value in the eyes of law.
2. Consideration is not real if it is illusory.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Arjun received a summons to appear at a trial as a witness on behalf of Bitu, the accused. Bitu promised to pay him a sum of ₹1,000 for his trouble. On default by Bitu, Arjun filed a suit to recover the said sum. 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:
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account the surrounding situation
FACTUAL SITUATION: Jogi and Prakash were neighbours in a residential locality. Prakash started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jogi who could not put up with any kind
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:
Principle: Property consists of the right to possess, the right to use, the right to alienate, and the right to exclude others. The sale is complete when the property gets transferred from the seller to the buyer.
Facts: ‘A’ sold his car to ‘B.’ B requested A to keep the car in his care on behalf B for one month. A agreed.
