Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud.
Facts: A sells to B (A‘s daughter who is a minor) a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the unsoundness of the horse.
पर्याय
A has committed fraud
A has committed no fraud
There cannot be a contract between a father and daughter
The daughter did not ask therefore the father did not tell, hence no fraud
Advertisements
उत्तर
A has committed no fraud
Explanation:
A has not committed fraud because A is merely silent as to the facts likely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract. In this case, A is silent about the fact of unsoundness of his horse which he sells to his daughter. Hence no fraud has been committed.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
When the contract is perfectly valid but cannot be enforced because of certain technical defects. This is called
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 contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in the position to father was in the will of the other parties, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.
Facts: Ram had advanced a sum of ₹10,000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of ₹30,000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?
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?
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 by 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.banks 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 defence 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?
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, the 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. Arun refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal’s son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
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: In order to be eligible to appear in the semester examination, a student is required to attend, under all circumstances, at least 70% of the total classes held in that semester as per University rules.
Facts: Anand, an economically poor but a very brilliant student of LLB final semester, while going to his University by cycle received some leg injuries in a road accident. Consequently, Anand could not attend his classes for one week as he was advised to rest by his doctor for that period. Due to this absence from the university, Anand failed to have 70% attendance essential to appear in the examination and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination by the University authorities. Anand challenges this decision in the court of law.
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. The expression of willingness/desire results in a valid proposal only when it is made/addressed to some person(s).
Facts: 'X' makes the following statement in an uninhabited hall. 'I wish to sell my mobile phone for ₹1000.'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent if they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, or undue influence, or fraud, or misrepresentation, or mistake.
When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable (rescindable or terminable) at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. However, when consent to an agreement is caused by mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Facts: 'X' threatens to gun down 'Y' if he ('Y') does not sell his property worth ₹2000000 for ₹ 100000 only. As a consequence, 'Y' agrees to sell it as demanded by 'X'.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
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
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?
