Advertisement Remove all ads

In this Question, the Problem Consists of a Set of Rules and Facts. Apply the Specified Rules to the Set of Facts and Answer the Question. Rules A. the Act of Using Threats to - Legal Reasoning

Question

MCQ

In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.

Rules 
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.

Facts 
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire business person, Chulbul who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals.  Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhanraj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO  of Maakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO.  
 Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract.  However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home,  Chulbul tells Baalu that he shall not enforce the employment contract.  Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.

Chulbul is:

Options

  • Justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Chulbul was received by Dhanraj

  • Justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Baalu was complicit in the receive act

  • Not juslilied in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Baalu was an innocent person and has not coerced Chulbul

  • Both Justified in refusing to enforce the employment  contract as Chulbul was coerced by Dhanraj and Justified in refusing to enforce the employment  contract as Baalu was complicit in the coercive act

Solution

Both Justified in refusing to enforce the employment  contract as Chulbul was coerced by Dhanraj and Justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Baalu was complicit in the coercive act

Explanation:
Since it was Baalu who kidnapped Aadil, he was complicit in the coercion.

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

View all notifications
Login
Create free account


      Forgot password?
View in app×