मराठी

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

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. 

पर्याय

  • B can enforce the agreement. 

  • B cannot enforce the agreement. 

  • A can enforce the agreement. 

  • Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement. 

MCQ
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.   

shaalaa.com

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.

shaalaa.com
Contract Law
  या प्रश्नात किंवा उत्तरात काही त्रुटी आहे का?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्‍न

Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

Facts: 'A‘ sent a letter making a proposal to 'B‘ to purchase the house of B.  


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

1. Consideration is something that moves from the promisee 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.

2. An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterward.

Factual Situation: Bournville ran a sales promotion whereby if persons sent in 3 chocolate bar wrappers and a postal order for f 100 they would be sent a record. Big Beats owned the copyright in one of the records offered and disputed the right of Bournville to offer the records and sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the records which normally retailed at f 1,000. Under the Copyright Act, retailers are protected from breach of copyright if they gave notice to the copyright holders of the ordinary retail selling price and paid them 6.25% of this. Bournville gave notice stating the ordinary selling price was f 100 and three chocolate bar wrappers. The issue is whether the chocolate bar wrappers formed part of the consideration?


X duly posts a letter of acceptance to Y. But the letter is lost  in transit by the negligence of the Post Office


Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situations. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.

A sent a letter to B stating that he was willing to sell to B, 10 bags of rice at 20/- each. B wrote a letter to A accepting the offer and posted it.


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 pact, other than a pact to commit suicide, to suffer any harm is not an offence, provided the age of the person who has given his consent to suffer harm is above eighteen years.

Facts: A enters into a pact with B, a boy of less than 18 years of age, to fence with each other for amusement. They agreed to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
1. Once a person accepts another's an offer, and signifies such acceptance to the former, a contract comes into existence between them.
2. Uncertain agreements are void agreements.
3. Rejected offers can be accepted only if renewed.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Bakshi wanted to purchase a particular land. He sent a letter to his cousin. Dutt, offering him 4 lakhs for it. Dutt replied that he would not sell it below 5 lakhs. Bakshi communicated his willingness to pay this amount. Dutt did not sell the land to Bakshi. Bakshi sued him for breach of contract.
DECISION:


LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An agreement is void if its object is unlawful.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Sunil had a rich uncle who owned prime property in Chennai and had a lot of money in the bank. Being the only heir. Sunil was sure that he would inherit the property. One day, the uncle called him to his room and announced that he planned to marry again. This angered Sunil and he plans to murder his uncle so he hired Anuj, a murderer, and entered into a contract with him to kill his uncle. Sunil agreed to pay 10 lakhs to Anuj and even paid 5 lakhs as advance. The following night Anuj entered the uncle's house intending to kill him. On reaching there, he realised that Sunil's uncle was already dead so he left without doing anything. The next day, after the post mortem report, it transpired that Sunil's uncle had died due to heart attack. Now, Sunil wants to recover the advance from Anuj. Will he succeed?
DECISION:


The following questions consist of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'.  Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.  

Assertion (A): A person claims compensation for his non-gratuitous act.

Reason (R): A person who enjoys benefit from lawful, non-gratuitous acts of another must compensate him even though there is no contract.


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:


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? 


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×