Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Terms of any written contract can be proved by producing the written contract only and oral evidence is excluded.
Facts: A gives B receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered to prove payment.
Options
Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed
Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed
Oral evidence is always allowed to prove all facts
Oral evidence is generally disallowed
Advertisements
Solution
Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed
Explanation:
Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed. Receipt of money is only on acknowledgment, not a written contract, and oral evidence is excluded from the written contracts. Therefore, the oral evidence of the receipt of payment is allowed.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
A lease agreement is a form of
The frustration of contract implies
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situations. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An agreement, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, is void.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B, who were brothers, entered into an agreement which stated that A would sell his entire share of the ancestral property to B. The agreement did not mention the specific details (like survey number) of the property.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE Where the parents of a minor child due to their negligence allow the child an opportunity to commit a tort, the parents are liable.
FACTUAL SITUATION The father supplied an airgun to his son who was about to turn 18 next month. After some complaints of mischief. the father took the gun away and placed it in a corner of their storeroom which was used by the family to store surplus and other unnecessary stuff. The son took it out of the store and shot A. A sued his father. Is the father liable? DECISION:
Principle: Agreements in restraint of marriage are void.
Facts: 'X' enters into an agreement, with 'Y' where under he agrees not to marry anybody else other than a person whose name starts with the letter 'A' and promises to pay ₹ 100000 to 'Y' if he ('X') breaks this agreement.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: A gift comprising both existing and the future property is void as to the latter.
Facts: 'X' has a house that is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house, but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to 'Y'
Under the aforementioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
1. Once a person accepts another's an offer, and signifies such acceptance to the former, a contract comes into existence between them.
2. Uncertain agreements are void agreements.
3. Rejected offers can be accepted only if renewed.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Bakshi wanted to purchase a particular land. He sent a letter to his cousin. Dutt, offering him ₹4 lakhs for it. Dutt replied that he would not sell it below 5 lakhs. Bakshi communicated his willingness to pay this amount. Dutt did not sell the land to Bakshi. Bakshi sued him for breach of contract.
DECISION:
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:
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Acceptance must be given only by the person to whom the offer is made. 2. Communication of acceptance to a person who did not make the offer does not bind the offeror.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Pal sold his business to Sam without disclosing it to his customers. Mani, an old customer sent an order for goods to Pal by name. Sam, the new owner, executed the order. Mani refuses to accept the goods from Sam as he intended to deal only with Pal. In a suit by Sam against Mani:
DECISION:
Study the following information and answer the questions that follow:
Principle: A 'fixture' is something attached to the land or a building in such a way that it is regarded as an irremovable part of the property you are considering buying. Some typical 'fixtures' in a home include the hot water service, range top, wall oven, fixed floor coverings, light fittings, and a built-in (under bench) dishwasher. Garden plants, including bushes and trees, are also 'fixtures'.
Rule A. When land is sold, all 'fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
Rule B. If a movable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Factual Situation Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Beghmara (Meghalaya) and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for ₹60 lakh. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-colored radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khaleeda no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Gurpreet has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda's ancestral home in Nagercoil (Tamil Nadu) for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Beghmara house.
Amongst the following options, the most relevant consideration while deciding a case on the basis of the above two principles, would be
