Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in the position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party.
Facts: A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Ten Lac Only) for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Five Lac Only) and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment, the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay.
पर्याय
The contract is enforceable against the doctor.
The contract is enforceable against the patient.
The contract is not enforceable.
The contract is not enforceable against the patient.
Advertisements
उत्तर
The contract is enforceable against the patient.
Explanation:
This contract is enforceable against the patient as evident from the principle, “the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate decision of the other party.” In this case, the doctor dominated the decision of the patient. So, if the doctor wants, he can enforce the decision against the patient.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: A person, who is usually mad, but occasionally not mad, may make a contract when he is not mad.
Facts: 'A‘ generally remains in the state of madness and rarely becomes capable of understanding anything.
A contract creates
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.
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.
Whether the consent to offer the flat as financial security obtained through undue influence?
Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?
Principle: Trade dispute means any dispute between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour, of any person. Disputes connected with the non-employment must be understood to include a dispute connected with a dismissal, discharge, removal, or retrenchment of a workman.
Facts: 'X', an employee in a sugar factory, raised a dispute against 'Y', the employer, through trade union regarding certain matters connected with his suspension from the employment.
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?
Study the following information and answer the question that follows:
Principle: A 'fixture' is something attached to the land or a building in such a way that it is regarded as an irremovable part of the property you are considering buying. Some typical 'fixtures' in a home include the hot water service, range top, wall oven, fixed floor coverings, light fittings, and a built-in (under bench) dishwasher. Garden plants, including bushes and trees, are also 'fixtures'.
Rule A. When land is sold, all 'fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
Rule B. If a movable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Factual Situation Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Beghmara (Meghalaya) and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for ₹60 lakh. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-coloured radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realises this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khaleeda no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Gurpreet has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda's ancestral home in Nagercoil (Tamil Nadu) for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Beghmara house.
As a judge you would decide in favour of
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account the surrounding situation
FACTUAL SITUATION: Jogi and Prakash were neighbours in a residential locality. Prakash started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jogi who could not put up with any kind
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:
