Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Law never enforces an impossible promise.
Facts: 'A‘ made a promise to 'B‘ to discover treasure by magic.
पर्याय
Law will enforce the promise.
Law will not enforce the promise.
Law will enforce the promise only at the option of A.
Law will enforce the promise only at the option of B.
Advertisements
उत्तर १
Law will not enforce the promise.
Explanation:
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act defines an agreement to do an impossible act in itself is void. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that Law will not enforce the agreement. "Law will not enforce the promise" is correct.
उत्तर २
Law will not enforce the promise.
Explanation:
Law will not enforce the promise because it is an impossible promise and the principle clearly states that Law will never enforce an impossible promise.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Agreements in restraint of trade are void and unenforceable.
Fact Situation: Manu has been working as a blacksmith in his village for many decades. Somu has been undergoing training with him for the past three years. After his training is over, Somu enters into an agreement with Manu that he will not start a competing business in the same village while Manu is alive.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
The frustration of contract implies
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 herein below 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 Generally, an agreement without consideration is not valid. Therefore in order to make a valid agreement some consideration which may have some value in the eyes of law, is essentially required.
FACTS William has an old car of which he makes seldom uses. He voluntarily enters into an agreement with Smith to sell this car for rupees ten thousand. Thereafter one Anson approaches William and offers to buy that car for rupees one lac as the car was one which Anson has been searching for long. Now William wants to cancel his agreement with Smith and refuses to deliver the car to him saying that consideration (price) for the car promised by Smith is negligible and, therefore, agreement with him cannot be said to be the valid one.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE A minor is not competent to contract.
FACTUAL SITUATION Deep, a 9th standard student realises that he is a minor, he is not permitted by law to execute a contract, appoints on Mandeep as his agent to conclude the purchase of land to gift it to his mother on her birthday. Mandeep accordingly prepares the papers for the transaction but at the last minute, the seller who had agreed to sell it now refuses to sell it contending that he does not wish to sell the land to a minor. Deep seeks to enforce the contract against the seller.
How many members are required to support the introduction of a No-Confidence Motion in the Lok Sabha?
Mark the incorrect answer
The main purpose of the Law of Contract is
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A contract requires a proposal and acceptance of the proposal. It is necessary to make a binding contract, not only that the proposal is accepted, but also that the acceptance is notified to the proposer.
Factual Situation: 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.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A second suit will not be heard on the same facts between the same parties.
Mr. Sampath went to a party alone in his wife Sunanda's car. He usually used his wife's car after office hours and his wife never objected to it. At the party, he got drunk. instead of taking the risk of driving the car, he requested his friend Mr. Vivek to drive him back home in Sunandas car, Mr. Vivek was quite sober since he had moderately consumed alcohol. On the way, Vivek knocked down a boy and injured his leg. Subsequently, on behalf of the boy, a claim for compensation was brought against Mrs.Sunanda since the car belonged to her and it was registered in her name. The insurance company refuses to pay compensation because the police report says that the person driving the car at the time of the accident had consumed alcohol.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A contract that is impossible to perform becomes void.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Surender agreed to deliver a specific quality of rice to Sonakshi identified by both of them. Before delivery, the rice was burnt by a short circuit. Is Surender discharged from the performance of the contract?
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:
