Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B‘s girlfriend.
Options
B can enforce the agreement.
B cannot enforce the agreement.
A can enforce the agreement.
Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.
Advertisements
Solution 1
B can enforce the agreement.
Explanation:
For the free consent under section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, when it is not caused by
i. Coercion as under Section 15
ii. Undue influences as Section 16
iii. Fraud as defined Section 17
iv. Misrepresentation as defined Section 18
v. Mistake subject to provision of Section 20, 21 & 22
The reasonable conclusion is drawn that as the consent B is not free, B can enforce the agreement.
Solution 2
B can enforce the agreement.
Explanation:
In this case, B can enforce the contract even if the contract was given under the pressure of gunpoint, that is, there was no free will. The enforceability is based on the principle that the agreement can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free. In other words, B did not have the free will when the contract was entered into, but he has the option to enforce it, that is, B can enforce it.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
LEGAL PRINCIPLE When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach. or which the parties knew, when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Decide, whether and to what extent B is entitled to damages in the following situation.
FACTUAL SITUATION A contracts with B to sell him 1000 tonnes of iron at ₹ 100 per tonne. B tells A that he needs the iron for export purposes, and that he would be selling the iron at ₹ 200 per tonne. A breaks the contract. When the question comes about damages, A says he will pay only ₹ 5000 as damages because the same variety of iron was available in the market at ₹ 105 per tonne. B however contends that he should be given ₹ 100000 because that was the profit which )he would have made had A fulfilled tbe contract B had actually bought the iron at ₹ 110 and had exported it. B is
Mark the incorrect answer
The main purpose of the Law of Contract is
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: In case of a breach of contract, compensation can be awarded for the personal inconvenience suffered by a party by reason of the breach, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Factual Situation: Sunita and Sushmita bought bus tickets for a journey from Adyar to Mandaveli. The bus was to go to St. Thomas Mount via Mandaveli. However, the driver mistakenly took the wrong direction and the two girls were dropped at a distance of 2Vi miles from Mandaveli on the highway. With no other transportation in sight nor a place to stay, the two had to walk 2V4 miles at midnight. Later they filed a case against the bus company and claimed 5,000 as damages for the inconvenience caused in having to walk and 6,500 for Sushmita having fallen ill by catching a cold during the night.
Decision:
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: Caveat emptor, i.e., 'let the buyer beware' stands for the practical skill judgment of the buyer in his choice of goods for purchase. It is the business of the buyer to judge for himself that what he buys has its use and worth for him. Once bought, and if the buyer is not up to his expectations, then he alone is to blame and no one else.
Facts: For the purpose of making a uniform for the employees, 'A' bought dark blue coloured cloth from 'B' but did not disclose to the seller ('B') the specific purpose of the said purchase. When uniforms were prepared and used by the employees, the cloth was found unfit. However, the cloth was fit for a variety of other purposes (such as, making caps, boots, and carriage lining, etc)
Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is correct as regards remedy available to 'A' in the given situation?
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:
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 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: According to the law of trade unions in India, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.
Facts: Soloman, the Secretary of a registered Trade Union took a loan from a bank for the higher education of his daughter. Soon after completing the course, she was married to an NRI Engineer. Solomon did not repay the loan. The Bank demanded the payments from Soloman and warned him that the Bank will take suitable legal action against him. Identify the legal position in this regard.
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: The acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, leaving no ground for doubt or uncertainty. If the acceptance is conditional, no valid contract is formed, and the offer can be withdrawn at any moment until the absolute acceptance has taken place within a reasonable time of such an offer.
Factual Situation: Delhi Government conducted an auction for the sale of the license of the wine shop. X offered the highest bid which was provisionally accepted "...subject to the confirmation of Chief Commissioner who may reject any bid without assigning any reasons." Since X failed to deposit the required amount, the Chief Commissioner rejected the bid. The government held X liable for the difference between the bid offered by him and the highest bid accepted in reauction and commenced proceedings for the recovery of the sum. It was contended on behalf of the government of Delhi that X was under a legal obligation to pay the difference as it was due to his default that a resale of the excise shop was ordered and hence X was liable for the deficiency in price and all expenses of such resale which was caused by his default.
Decide, giving a reason, whether X is liable to make payment to the Delhi Government.
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: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of an employment agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car." B used it to go to work and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question, the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realized that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y, and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal, On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y, and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable.
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:
1. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third party.
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfill his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defence under the law of torts.
Factual Situation: Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbour in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officer's lad retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the amount of the damage. Decide whether, on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.
Decision:
