Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: When a party to a contract has refused to perform or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the other party shall not put an end to the contract.
Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.
Options
B cannot put the contract to an end.
B can put the contract to an end.
C can put his contract with B to an end.
A must pay damages to B.
Advertisements
Solution
B cannot put the contract to an end.
Explanation:
B cannot put the contract to an end. In this case, A and B are the parties to the contract. A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. This message was conveyed after the contract was entered into. Meanwhile, B joined another employer. Since A did not fulfill the promise of the contract in its entirety, the other party, that is B cannot put an end to the contract.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Facts: 'A‘ sent a letter making a proposal to 'B‘ to purchase the house of B.
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.
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 herein below 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 A contract cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not a party to it. However, where some benefit is conferred on the third party by the contract itself, their third party can be allowed to enforce that contract to get such benefit.
FACTS Dinesh is liable to pay ₹50000 to Suresh. In order to discharge this liability, Dinesh enters into a contract with Ramesh by which Dinesh sells his car to Ramesh for ₹1 lac. Ramesh takes the delivery of the car and promises/assures to pay its price at the earliest. Dinesh separately informs Suresh about this contract for his satisfaction. Ramesh fails to pay the car's price. Suresh wants to join Dinesh in filing suit against Ramesh for the recovery of the price of the car. Whether Suresh is entitled to do so?
'Pacta Sunt Servanda' means that
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.
assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?
In Ram v/s Shyam, Ram cannot be a
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. The expression of willingness/desire results in a valid proposal only when it is made/addressed to some person(s).
Facts: 'X' makes the following statement in an uninhabited hall. 'I wish to sell my mobile phone for ₹1000.'
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: Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B started a partnership firm for providing vehicle repair services. C approached the firm for getting his car repaired and noticed that only B was present in the office. C informed the problem and B started repairing the car. While B was repairing, he filled petrol instead of oil in the engine. As a consequence, a small blast occurred and damaged the car. Now, C sued both A and B for the damage so caused. Decide.
DECISION:
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every agreement, by which any party is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, is void to that extent.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Feroz and Pinto entered into an agreement for rendering certain services. As per the prevailing law, the agreement may be enforced either at Jaipur or Udaipur. The agreement itself, however, specifies that upon breach, the parties can only approach courts at Jaipur. Feroz breaches the contract and Pinto, being a resident of Udaipur. would like to sue him in Udaipur. He challenged the validity of the clause.
DECISION:
