Advertisement Remove all ads

Consists of Legal Proposition(S)/ Principle(S) (Hereinafter Referred to as 'Principle') and Facts. Such Principles May Or May Not Be True - Legal Reasoning

MCQ

Consists of legal proposition(s)/  principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every 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, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.  
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option. 

Principle: An agreement, the terms of which are not certain, or capable of being made certain, is void.

Facts: Sunder agreed to take Bhola’s penthouse on rent for three years at the rate of rupees 12, 00, 000/­- per annum provided the house was put to thorough repairs and the living rooms were decorated according to contemporary style.

Options

  • There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term 'present style' may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.  

  • There is a valid contract because there is an offer from  Sunder and acceptance from Bhola  

  • It is a voidable contract at the option of Bhola.  

  • There is a valid contract because all the terms of the contract are certain and not vague as the rent is fixed by both of them and the term 'present style' only can be interpreted to mean the latest style.  

Advertisement Remove all ads

Solution

There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term 'present style' may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.  

Explanation:

There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term 'present style' may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola. The agreement did not state clearly what was contemporary style. It was a subjective and uncertain condition and could have meant differently to Sunder and Bhola. (Smt. Sohbatdei vs Deviplal And Ors AIR 1971 SC 2192, (1972) 3 SCC 495, 1971 III UJ 395 SC)

Concept: Indian Contract Act (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads
Share
Notifications

View all notifications


      Forgot password?
View in app×