LAW OF CONTRACT – I
MODEL PROBLEMS – PART-C.
SUBHEADINGS WE HAVE TO KEEP FOR PART-C:
---------------------------
1.BASIC FACTS OR FACTS
( Write the Facts in the question as it is )
2.ISSUES IN THE PROBLEM
( Write the question mark part of the line in the given question. Related grounds in the
Subject and sections )
3.REFERENCE CASE LAW
4.DECIDED CASES JUDGEMENT
5.DECISION OR CONCLUSION
(OR)
1.BASIC FACTS OR FACTS
2.ISSUES IN THE PROBLEM
3.RELATED GROUNDS
(* THIS PROBLEM RELATED TO WHICH TOPIC IN THE SUBJECT AND SECTIONS IN ACTS)
4.JUDGEMENT IN DECIDED CASES
( WRITE RELATED CASE LAW AND JUDGEMENT
5.DECISION OR CONCLUSION
Problem No. 1
Husband, upon divorce, promised his wife Rs. 3,000 a year as permanent allowance. In
reliance upon his promise the wife forbore to apply to the court for maintenance. The husband
failed to make the payments and the wife sues him on the promise – Decide.
Answer
The wife cannot succeed because the promise of her husband has not created any legal obligation
to his divorced wife.One of the rules of offer is that the offer must give rise to legal relationship i.e.,
legal obligation and not social obligation. (Sec.10)
The facts of the problem are similar to Balfour Vs. Balfour, (1919) 2 K.B. 571): wherein the
husband promised to pay his wife a maintenance allowance of £ 30 every month. Later both the
husband and the wife got separated and the husband failed to pay the amount. The wife sued for
the allowance. The Court held that the agreement is of such nature which was outside the realm
and scope of contract and does not create any legal obligation.
Problem No. 2
A issued a pamphlet offering to pay
Rs. 1,000/- to any one who brings to him his missing son. ‘B’ traced the boy and brought his to
‘A’ before he read the pamphlet. Can ‘B’ claim the reward?
Answer
B cannot claim the reward. Though the offer through issue of pamphlet is a public offer i.e. offer at
large, only such person who has become aware (i.e., known the contents of the offer) and
then performs the terms of offer i.e., tracing of the missing son, is deemed to have accepted the
offer by such performance as per Sec. 8 of the Indian Contract Act which reads that performance
of the condition of the proposal (after knowing the proposal) is an acceptance of the proposal.
One of the rules of offer as per Sec. 2 (a) of the Indian Contract Act is that the offer must have been
communicated to the offeree and in furtherance of such communication, the offeree must either
have accepted or performed the conditions mentioned in the offer to form a valid contract.
In the above case, since the offer of reward by A was not communicated to B, his performance of
the offer was without any intention/expectation of getting the reward and therefore B cannot
successfully claim the reward from A.
The facts of the case resemble Lalman Shukla Vs. Gauri Dutt, (1913) 11 All. LJ 489, wherein the
Court held that the plaintiff could not succeed to the reward, because he did not have the
knowledge of the offer of reward.
Problem No. 3
X, a customer picks up an article in a self service departmental store and takes it to the cash
counter. Y a clerk at cash counter declines to sell. X files a suit against the shopkeeper.
Decide.
Answer
X cannot file a suit against the shopkeeper as keeping an article in self service departmental
store is only an invitation to make an offer and not an offer by itself. It is only an expression of
willingness of shopkeeper to enter into contract with the customer. Thus articles kept in a shop are
invitations to offer and not actual offers.
The facts of the case resemble the leading case Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Vs.
Boots Cash Chemists (1953) Q.B. 401, wherein the Court held that the mere display of an article
constitutes only an invitation to offer and not offer.
Problem No. 4
A sends an offer to B by post. B posts his letter of acceptance but subsequently B sends a
telegram revoking his acceptance. Is there any enforceable contract between A and B?
Answer
There is no enforceable contract between A and B, as B has revoked the offer by telegram even
before B’s letter of acceptance has reached the hands of A.
As per Sec. 4 of the Indian Contract Act, the communication of acceptance is complete as against
the proposer when the letter of acceptance is put in the course of transmission so as it is out of the
power of the acceptor and as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of proposer.
As per Sec. 5 of the Indian Contract Act, an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the
communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards.
In the above case, B may revoke his acceptance at any time before or at the moment when the
letter communicating acceptance reaches A, but not afterwards. Even if the letter of acceptance
and the letter of revocation of B reach the offeror A simultaneously, the acceptance has been
effectively revoked.
Problem No. 5
Santhi owes Rs. 5,000/- to Nandhini. But the debt is barred by the limitation Act. Santhi gives
another written promise to pay Rs. 5,000/- for that time barred debt. Is the agreement
enforceable?
Answer
The agreement is enforceable by Nandhini against Santhi.
Sec. 25 of the Indian Contract Act reads – an agreement without consideration is void unless it is
a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law. The promise must be in writing and signed by the
debtor or his authorised agent to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have
enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits.
In the above case, Santhi has given a written promise to pay Rs. 5,000/- for the time barred debt
which is covered under Sec. 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and hence an enforceable contract by
Nandhini against Santhi.
The facts of the case resemble Debi Prasad Vs. Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 1943 All 63, wherein the
Court held that if an acknowledgement of a debt was with an undertaking to pay interest, then it
was an agreement with a promise to pay the debt and hence covered under section 25 (3).
Problem No. 6
At the time of partition of the family property, it was agreed that the two male members. ‘A’ and
‘B’ will bear the marriage expenses of ‘C’ the female member of the family. ‘A’ and ‘B’ fail to
fulfil the promise. Provide legal advice to ‘C’.
Answer
C can file a suit to compel A and B to bear the marriage expenses of C, though C is a third
party to the agreement between A and B at the time of partition of the family property.
Family settlement, partition and marriage settlement are exceptions to the rule of privity of
contract i.e., only the parties to the contract can enforce the contract against each other and not
outsiders of the contract.
The facts of the case resemble Sundar Raja Vs. Lakshmi Ammal, 1915 ILR 38 Mad.
877, wherein the Court held that the sister could enforce the partition deed, though she was not a
party to it.
Problem No. 7
A promised B to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for temple renovation. But ‘A’ refused to perform his
promise. Can B recover the amount from ‘A’? Give reasons.
Answer
B cannot recover the amount from A as the promise by A to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for temple
renovation is a contract without consideration and hence void as per Sec. 25 of the Indian Contract
Act.
On the promise of payment of Rs. 10,000/- by A to B, only if B has taken some steps towards the
temple renovation, then the contract is enforceable to the extent of the amount incurred as an
exception to the rule that a contract without consideration is void.
The facts of the case resemble Abdul Aziz Vs. Masum Ali, (1914) 36 All 268, wherein the Court
held that in a promise to give certain sum of money as donation towards the construction of a
mosque building, if no steps were taken by the donor towards the construction, then the agreement
was invalid, as there was no consideration for the agreement.
Problem No. 8
‘A’ a minor representing himself as a major buys a motor car on credit. Can the seller recover
the price of the car back?
Answer
Since the principle of estoppel is not applicable to minor, even if a minor by misrepresenting his
age as a major, induces a party to contract with him, such contract is also void.
However, the seller can get back the motor car as per Sec. 68 (quasi contract), provided the supply
of car is necessary suited to the conditions in life of the minor.
The above provision of law was applied in Leslie Vs. Sheill, (1914) 3 K.B. 607 wherein when a
minor misrepresented his age as that of a major and fraudulently induced another person to lend
him a loan, the Court held that since the agreement was absolutely void, the minor was not liable to
repay the debt.
Problem No. 9
‘X’ threatened to commit suicide if his wife and daughter did not execute a gift deed of certain
properties in his favour. Does this act, amount to coercion.
Answer
Yes.This act amounts to coercion u/s.15 of the Indian Contract Act, Sec.15 of the Indian Contract
Act defines coercion as the committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian
Penal Code.
When a person is compelled to enter into a contract under a threat to commit any act forbidden by
the Indian Penal Code, coercion is employed.
The facts of the problem resemble Chikham Amiraju Vs. Seshamma (1917, 41 Mad. 33)
wherein the husband threatened to commit suicide if his wife and son did not execute a release
deed in favour of his brother’s wife with regard to certain properties.
Thereupon, the wife and the son executed the release deed.The Court held that threat to commit
suicide though not punishable under the I.P.C. is deemed to be an act of attempting to commit
suicide under Sec. 309 I.P.C. and hence the agreement entered under such threat is voidable at
the option of the wife and son.
Problem No. 10
“A” agree to sell “B” a particular horse which is believed by both the parties to be a race
horse but later on it turns out to be a cart horse. Is the agreement valid?
Answer
A agreement is not valid due to bilateral mistake on both the parties A and B. As per Sec. 20 of the
Indian Contract Act, when both the parties to the contract are under a mistake as to a matter
essential to the contract, it is called Bilateral Mistake.
Problem No. 11
‘A’ promises to pay ‘B’ Rs. 1,000/- if ‘B’ beats ‘C’. B beats ‘C’ but ‘A’ refuses to pay. Can ‘B’
recover?
Answer
B cannot recover Rs. 1000 from A, because as per Sec. 23 of Indian Contract Act, if the object or
the consideration of an agreement is the doing of an act forbidden by law, the agreement is void.
When an act is punishable by the criminal law or any other special law of the land, then such act is
considered to be forbidden by law.
Thus, if the object of an agreement is to injure the person or property of another, then it is unlawful.
For e.g., An agreement to commit an offence causing physical injury or damage to one’s property is
unlawful.
Problem No. 12
‘A’ agrees to jump up and touch the sky and ‘B’ agrees to pay Rs. 5,000/- to ‘A’ for this
Act. Decide the validity of the agreement.
Answer
The agreement is invalid, as jumping up and touch the sky is an impossible act. As per Sec. 36 of
the Indian Contract Act, an agreement is void, if it is contingent on impossible events. It is not
necessary that the parties must know its impossibility at the time when it is made.
Problem No. 13
B hires a marriage hall from C. The hall was accidentally burnt down even before the marriage
took place. B files a suit against C. Advise to C.
Answer
C can successfully resist the suit filed by A as the contract has become void due to supervening
impossibility as under Sec. 56 – Para 2 of the Indian Contract Act. Supervening impossibility
means an impossibility which arises subsequent to the formation of the contract and before the
date of performance of the contract.
The above case, C has let out the marriage hall to B and even before the date of marriage, the hall
was accidentally burnt and hence the contract has become impossible of the performance due to
the supervening impossibility. So the contract becomes void.
The facts of the case resemble Taylor Vs. Caldwell, (1863) 3 B & S 826 , where the subject matter
of the contract, subsequent to its formation, was destroyed without the fault of the contracting
parties and hence the contract gets discharged due to impossibility.
Problem No. 14
Mani a tradesman leaves a bag of rice at Selvam’s house by mistake. Selvam consumes the
goods for his own use. Can Mani recover the price of the goods from Selvam?
Answer
Yes. Mani can recover the price of the goods from Selvam.
As per Sec. 72 of the Indian Contract Act which speaks about quasi contract - If a person pays
or delivers by mistake or under coercion something to any person, the latter must repay or return
it to the person who pays it. The mistake here can be a mistake of fact or mistake of law.
Further, as per Sec. 70 of the Indian Contract Act which reads that ‘if a person lawfully does
or delivers anything to another person not intending to do so freely (gratuitously), then such other
person who enjoys such benefit is bound to compensate the former. However the thing done must
be a lawful one’.
Thus Selvam must pay for the price of the goods to Mani.
Problem No. 15
In the course of employment as an advocate, Raman got possession of some letters written by
his client Mala. Raman threatens to disclose the contents of the letters to a stranger. Can Mala
sue for injunction?
Answer
Yes. Mala can sue for a prohibitory (Negative) injunction to prevent her advocate from disclosing
the contents of her letters to a stranger and a mandatory injunction directing the Advocate to hand
over the letters to Mala. This remedy is available as per Sec. 39 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
Prohibitory injunction or negative injunction is an order of the Court to prevent a party from doing
a wrongful act.
Mandatory injunction or positive injunction
(Sec. 39) is an order of the Court to do a positive act in order to prevent the breach of an
obligation.
Thus, Mala can sue for both prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction to prevent the
Advocate from disclosing the letters to a stranger and to handover them to Mala.
By
Ch.Nagesh
aaradhyalaw.blogspot.in
