मराठी

Principle: a Contract Would Be Invalid and Unlawful If the Contract is for Any Immoral Or Illegal Purpose.

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: A contract would be invalid and unlawful if the contract is for any immoral or illegal purpose.

Facts: P, was a young and helpless widow, living on the pavement. R, a neighbor gave her a house, registered in her name, on the condition that she should allow R to keep his smuggled goods and drugs in her house. After the registration was done, according to the condition in the contract, R’s agents went to keep some packets in her house, she refused. R told her the condition under which the house was given to her. She still refused. Is P justified in her action?

पर्याय

  • As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P's stand is valid in law. 

  • R can take back the house by cancelling the transfer deed.

  • P is not justified as she did not have the right to deny  R's request. 

  • P is right as she did not like smuggled goods to be kept in her house. 

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P’s stand is valid in law

Explanation:

As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P's stand is valid in law. The conditions made by R were illegal in nature. Such conditions made the contract invalid and unlawful. The contract does not stand valid in the court of law. 

shaalaa.com
Indian Contract Act (Entrance Exams)
  या प्रश्नात किंवा उत्तरात काही त्रुटी आहे का?
2016-2017 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्‍न

In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.

Rules 
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.

Facts: 
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire business person, Chulbal who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhamaj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of NIaakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO. Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baala that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.

In the above fact situation:


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. 

Rules: 
A. When land is sold, all `fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a moveable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.

Facts: Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Baghmara, Meghalaya and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Garret for sixty laky rupees. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khalid used this light-colored radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Garret, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khalid. Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khalid no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Garret has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda's ancestral home in Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Baghmara house. As a judge, you would decide in favour of it.


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.


Which of the following statements in regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy is correct?


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: Nuisance as a tort (civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.

FACT: During the scarcity of onions, long queues "'Nt?l'e made outside the defendant's shop who has a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only l Kg, of onion per ration card The queues extended on to the highway and also causes some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought an action for nuisance against the defendant.


Mark the best option:
Facts: Ganga asked Ram to send him 15 bottles of groundnut oil at once. Ram wrote back that he would send the bottles in15-20 days. Ganga did not reply and ultimately about a month and a half later Ram sent the goods. Ganga refused to accept the goods and said that there was no contract. Ram sued him in court. Will Ram succeed in his case?
Principle:

  1. In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance should be absolute and unqualified.
  2. If there is an offer and acceptance between parties a contract is formed.

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: Every agreement, by which any party is restricted absolutely from enforcing his right in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary Tribunals, is void to that extent. The law also provides that nobody can confer jurisdiction to a civil court by an agreement between parties.

Facts: A and B entered into a valid contract for rendering certain services. A clause in the contract was that in case of any dispute arose out of the contract; it shall be referred to for Arbitration only. Is the contract valid?


“A Contract is an agreement creating and defining obligations between the parties” the definition was put forwarded by


As per section 2(e) of the Indian Contract Act, “Every Promise and every set of promise forming the consideration for each other is a/an


An offer stands revoked


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×