Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: An interest created, dependent upon a condition fails, if the fulfillment of the condition is impossible.
Facts: A promises to pay Rs. Ten Lakh to B on condition that he shall marry A‘s daughter C. At the date on which A gave Rs. Ten Lac to B, C was dead.
पर्याय
B‘s interest fails
B‘s interest fails because of immorality
B‘s interest fails because of prohibition by law
B‘s interest does not fail
Advertisements
उत्तर
B‘s interest fails
Explanation:
In this case, B’s interest fails because the fulfillment of the condition is impossible. Since A’s daughter C dies, the condition that B marries C for the payment of ₹10 lacs fails. However, it does not fail because of immorality or prohibition by law.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
LEGAL PRINCIPLE The contract after the death of one party can be continued if it is ratified by the surviving party.
FACTUAL SITUATION Vishal, a famous artist was requested by Arun, an industrialist to draw the portrait of his deceased wife and paid ₹ 20,000/- in advance and agreed to pay when the work was completed, a sum of ₹2 lakhs·. When the portrait was half drawn, Vishal died due to a heart attack. His son also a fine artist completed his father's work and. demanded the money from Arun. Aron refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal's son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
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: MXM Co. is a building contractor who entered into an agreement with Star Heights Housing Association to refurbish a block of 27 flats. This contract was subject to a liquidated damages clause if they did not complete the contract on time. The MXM Co. engaged Hasan to do the carpentry work for an agreed price of Rs. 20,000. After six months of commencing the work, Hasan realized he had priced the job too low and would be unable to complete at the originally agreed price. He approached MXM Co. who recognized that the price was particularly low and was concerned about completing the contract on time. MXM Co. agreed to make additional payments to Hasan in return for his promise to carry out his existing obligations.
MXM Co. agreed to pay Hasan an additional f 575 per flat. Hasan continued work on the flats for a further period of 6 weeks but only received an additional f 5,000. He then ran out of money and refused to continue unless payment was made. MXM Co. engaged another carpenter to complete the contract and refused to pay Hasan any further sums. Hasan sued for payment under the original agreement and the subsequent agreement. MXM Co. argued that the agreement to make additional payments was unenforceable as Hasan has not provided any consideration to make this agreement a valid contract. Decide.
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 condition precedent must be complied with before the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached. Fulfillment of such a condition after the happening of the event is no fulfillment of a condition.
Facts: A transfers ₹5,000 to B on condition that he shall marry with the consent of C, D and E. As C, D, and E had to go abroad for some business purposes and as the date of marriage was already fixed, therefore, B marries without the consent of C, D, and E, but obtains their consent after the marriage when C, D, and E return to their country.
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:
Principle: Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Factual Situation: Roxanne supplies designer clothes to big showrooms and famous cloth houses. Max agrees to buy a certain consignment of only pink designer clothes for his shop due to the pink coloured theme of his famous shop. The issue cropped up when the exclusive pink coloured dresses were not delivered to Max's showroom, but to some other buyer, who had earlier contracted with Roxanne's store and all this was neither in the knowledge of Roxanne nor Max Decide whether the contract between Roxanne and Max is void?
Principle: Contract is an agreement entered into between the parties.
Factual Situation: Ramlal was a dealer in cement. The Government of India, by an order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, fixed the price of cement and also, the quantity which a person can buy from the dealer, Ramlal carried on his business under this new order for some time, but he refused to pay sales tax on his sales transactions on the ground that these were not the contracts freely entered into by him.
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.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Ram sends a telegram to Sohan, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Sohan also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for the car is ₹20 lakh.” Ram immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the car for ₹20 lakh asked by you.” Sohan refused to sell the car.
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: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to 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 bank's 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 defense 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.
Assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?
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: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of an employment agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car." B used it to go to work and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question, the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realized that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y, and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal, On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y, and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable.
Decision:
