Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: An agreement may be entered into orally, in writing, or by conduct.
Facts: 'A‘ went to the shop of 'B‘ and picked a toothbrush and gave a cheque of Rupees twenty to B and left the shop.
Options
A entered into an agreement with B.
A did not enter into an agreement with B.
Payment of tooth brush cannot be made through a cheque.
A should have carried a currency note of Rupees twenty to make the payment.
Advertisements
Solution
A entered into an agreement with B.
Explanation:
The agreement is complete as evident from the writing and conduct of A. A cheque of Rs. 20 is the written form of contract (the contract is that I am paying Rs. 20 for the toothbrush). Secondly, A’s conduct of entering the shop, picking a toothbrush, and making cheque payment shows A and B have entered into a contract.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
The frustration of contract implies
Under which law a minor is incapable of entering into a contract?
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?
How many members are required to support the introduction of a No-Confidence Motion in the Lok Sabha?
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: In an agreement, a condition subsequent must be complied with, to claim the benefit of that agreement.
Facts: A agrees to transfer a farm to B, provided that, if B does 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.
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: The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Facts: 'X' promises to pay 'Y' ₹50000, if he ('Y') commits a crime, 'X' further promises to indemnify him ('Y') against any liability arising thereof. 'Y' agrees to act as per X's promise. Which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An agreement is void if its object is unlawful.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Sunil had a rich uncle who owned prime property in Chennai and had a lot of money in the bank. Being the only heir. Sunil was sure that he would inherit the property. One day, the uncle called him to his room and announced that he planned to marry again. This angered Sunil and he plans to murder his uncle so he hired Anuj, a murderer, and entered into a contract with him to kill his uncle. Sunil agreed to pay ₹10 lakhs to Anuj and even paid 5 lakhs as advance. The following night Anuj entered the uncle's house intending to kill him. On reaching there, he realised that Sunil's uncle was already dead so he left without doing anything. The next day, after the post mortem report, it transpired that Sunil's uncle had died due to heart attack. Now, Sunil wants to recover the advance from Anuj. Will he succeed?
DECISION:
The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): The entries in the three legislative lists are not always set out with scientific precision.
Reason (R): The entries are not powers but are only fields of legislation.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer, When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus and idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
2. Consideration is something that moves from the promise to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right. interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
3. Contractual rights and liabilities are exclusive to the parties to contract.
4. There are few exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contracts like agency, trust, assignment, and third party beneficiary.
5. A quasi-contract is a contract that is created by the court when no such official contract exists between the parties to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched, or from benefitting from the situation when he/she does not deserve to do so.
Facts: Nandini, by deed of gift, made over the certain landed property to Reena, her daughter. By the terms of the deed, which was registered, it was stipulated that an annuity of ₹ 3,000 should be paid every year to Subhashini, sister of Nandini. Reena executed in Subhashini’s favour an agreement promising to give effect to stipulation. The annuity was, however, not paid and Subhashini sued to recover it. Reena is defending herself by claiming that there is no valid contract with Subhashini. Which of the following can be ground/s for the court’s decision?
I. A promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the promise or any other person.
II Only a person who is a party to a contract may demand the execution of that contract from other parties. But if there is a third-party beneficiary to the contract then it is enforced to the extent of his\her benefit.
III. The agreement is valid as both Reena and Subhashini agreed to it on the same thing in the same sense.
IV. There is no privity of contract as Subhashini has furnished no consideration. Reena had promised to Subhashini but consideration was furnished by Nandini.
