Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every 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, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: An agreement, the terms of which are not certain, or capable of being made certain, is void.
Facts: Sunder agreed to take Bhola’s penthouse on rent for three years at the rate of rupees 12, 00, 000/- per annum provided the house was put to thorough repairs and the living rooms were decorated according to contemporary style.
पर्याय
There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term 'present style' may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.
There is a valid contract because there is an offer from Sunder and acceptance from Bhola
It is a voidable contract at the option of Bhola.
There is a valid contract because all the terms of the contract are certain and not vague as the rent is fixed by both of them and the term 'present style' only can be interpreted to mean the latest style.
Advertisements
उत्तर
There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term 'present style' may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.
Explanation:
There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term 'present style' may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola. The agreement did not state clearly what was contemporary style. It was a subjective and uncertain condition and could have meant differently to Sunder and Bhola. (Smt. Sohbatdei vs Deviplal And Ors AIR 1971 SC 2192, (1972) 3 SCC 495, 1971 III UJ 395 SC)
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three storey houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinke company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying only Rule B and C to Ramesh's case, you would decide:
Principle: Property can be transferred only by a living person to another living person.
Facts: 'A‘ transfers property of which he is the owner in favor of the unborn child of B.
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Doctrine of Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice.
FACT: MaqbooI brought some gold into India witnout mal<ing any declaration to Custom department on the airport. The custom authorities confiscated the gold under the Sea Customs Act. Maqbool was later charged for having committed an offence under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Every agreement, of which the object or consideration is opposed to public policy, is void. An agreement that has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare is one against public policy. What constitutes an injury to public interest or public welfare would d epend upon the times and the circumstances.
Facts: ‘A’ promises to obtain for ‘B’ employment in the public service, and ‘B’ promises to pay rupees 5,00,000/ to ‘A’.
The Indian Contract Act came into force on:
Valid contracts
A/an ............... is every Promise and every set of promises, forming consideration for each other
A contract in which, under the terms of a contract, nothing remains to be done by either party is known as
A contract is made where:
Which article provides for the office of the Attorney General of India?
