Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: When a party to a contract has refused to perform or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the other party shall not put an end to the contract.
Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.
पर्याय
B cannot put the contract to an end.
B can put the contract to an end.
C can put his contract with B to an end.
A must pay damages to B.
Advertisements
उत्तर
B cannot put the contract to an end.
Explanation:
B cannot put the contract to an end. In this case, A and B are the parties to the contract. A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. This message was conveyed after the contract was entered into. Meanwhile, B joined another employer. Since A did not fulfill the promise of the contract in its entirety, the other party, that is B cannot put an end to the contract.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Which one of the following conditions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization has been wrongly listed?
In Ram v/s Shyam, Ram cannot be a
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situations. 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 Rs. 20/- each. B made a telephone call to A to inform him that he had accepted the offer. Just as he was stating his acceptance, a very noisy aircraft few over B's house. A was not able to hear the acceptance.
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: An agreement becomes a contract when it is entered into between two or more people with each other's free consent. Two or more people are said to consent when they agree to the same thing in the same sense. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.
Factual Situation: A went to a doctor to get himself treated. The doctor asked him to sign a "consent form" and said that unless he signs it, he will not examine him. A signed the form waiving his right to sue the doctor.
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.
Principle A proposal (offer) should be made with an intention that after its valid acceptance, a legally binding promise or agreement will be created. The test for the determination of such intention is not subjective, rather it is objective. The intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the terms of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances under which such an agreement is entered into.
As a general rule, in the case of arrangements regulating social relations, it follows as a matter of course that the parties do not intend legal consequences to follow. On the contrary, as a general rule, in the case of arrangements regulating business affairs, it follows as a matter of course that the parties intend legal consequences to follow. However, the above rules are just presumptive in nature and hence can be rebutted.
Facts: One morning while having breakfast, 'X', the father, says to 'Y' (X's son), in a casual manner, 'I shall buy a motorbike for you if you get through the CLAT.'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: When a person represents to another something like a true fact knowing well truly that it is not true," he is guilty of fraud. The person subjected to fraud may avoid an agreement.
Factual Situation: A presents a horse for sale. The' horse is kept on display so that anyone interested could examine it. The horse has a cracked hoof and it is cleverly concealed by the owner. B tells "if you do not deny it, I Shall assume that the horse is sound." A keeps silent. B purchases the horse.
Decision
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.
Whether the consent to offer the flat as financial security obtained through 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: Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But at the same time, Article 19(5) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement on the ground of interest of the general public.
Factual Situation: Wearing of the helmet is made compulsory for all two-wheeler riders by a law enacted by the State. The constitutionality of the law is questioned before the High Court on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(d) of the petitioner. Will the petitioner succeed?
Decision:
