Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: A condition must have complied in order to claim the benefit of an agreement.
Facts: A agrees to transfer a farm to B, if B shall not go to England within three years after the date of the agreement, his interest in the farm shall cease. B does not go to England within the term prescribed.
Options
B‘s interest in the farm continues
B‘s interest in the farm does not continue
B has a fundamental right to go to England or not to go to England and hence the condition is illegal
The agreement between A and B is void
Advertisements
Solution
B‘s interest in the farm does not continue
Explanation:
B’s interest in the farm does not continue because his interest shall cease is itself the part of the condition. Read the facts. Here you will find that “his interest in the farm shall cease” is a part of the successful fulfillment of the condition.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
The Contract Act came into force
An agreement is valid
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, a 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. Aron refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal's son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
A contract enforceable at the instance of one Party is known as
How many members are required to support the introduction of a No-Confidence Motion in the Lok Sabha?
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.
X, a married woman, agreed to live in adultery with B and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, B agreed to pay X ₹ 500 per month for living in adultery and ₹ 500 per month for housekeeping. The agreement is ______.
Principle: The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if the court regards it as opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Facts: 'X' promises to obtain for 'Y' employment in the public service and 'Y' promises to pay ₹500000 to 'X'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Ram sends a telegram to Sohan, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Sohan also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for the car is ₹20 lakh.” Ram immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the car for ₹20 lakh asked by you.” Sohan refused to sell the car.
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:
