Multiple Choice Contract 1
Multiple Choice Contract 1
1
8. A proposal when accepted becomes
(a) promise under section 2(b)
(b) agreement under section 2(e)
(c) contract under section 2(h)
(d) none of the above.
9. When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has
done or abstained from doing or, does or abstain from doing or promises to do or
to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise under
section 2(d) is called
(a) reciprocal promise
(b) consideration for the promise
(c) counter offer
(d) acceptance.
10. Promises which form the consideration or part thereof, for each other under
section 2(F) are called
(a) acceptances for different proposals
(b) agreements
(c) reciprocal promises
(d) consideration.
11. Every promise or set of promises forming the consideration for each other
under section 2(e) is called
(a) reciprocal promise
(b) contract
(c) agreement
(d) none of the above.
12. An agreement enforceable by law at the instance of one party & not of other
party under section 2(i) is called
(a) a valid contract
(b) an illegal contract
(c) void contract
(d) a voidable contract.
13. Which is correct
(a) proposal + acceptance = promise
(b) promise + consideration = agreement
(c) agreement + enforceability = contract
(d) all the above.
14. In a valid contract, what comes first
(a) enforceability
(b) acceptance
(c) promise
(d) proposal.
15. Under section 2(c) promisor is the
2
(a) person who makes the proposal
(b) person who accepts the proposal
(c) person who makes the promise
(d) person to whom the proposal is made.
16. Under section 2(c) promisee is the
(a) person who makes the proposal
(b) person who accepts the proposal
(c) person who makes the promise
(d) person to whom proposal is made.
17. Goods displayed in a shop with a price tag is an
(a) offer
(b) invitation to offer
(c) counter offer
(d) none of the above.
18. Tender is
(a) an offer
(b) an invitation to offer
(c) a counter offer
(d) a promise.
19. Communication of a proposal is complete
(a) when it is put in the course of transmission
(b) when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made
(c) when the proposal is communicated to the person to whom it is made
(d) all the above.
20. Communication of acceptance is complete as against the proposer
(a) when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer
(b) when it is put in the course of transmission to him so as to be out of power of
the acceptor
(c) when the acceptance is communicated to the proposer
(d) all the above.
21. Communication of acceptance is complete as against the acceptor
(a) when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer
(b) when it is put in the course of transmission
(c) when it is communicated to the acceptor that the acceptance has reached the
proposer
(d) when the proposer conveys the acceptance to the acceptor.
22. Revocation of offer by letter or telegram can be complete
(a) when it is despatched
(b) when it is received by the offeree
(c) when it reaches the offeree
(d) both (a) and (c).
23. Acceptance to be valid must
3
(a) be absolute
(b) be unqualified
(c) both be absolute & unqualified
(d) be conditional.
24. A contract with or by a minor is a
(a) valid contract
(b) void contract
(c) voidable contract
(d) voidable at the option of either party.
25. A contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void
(a) when it ceases to be enforceable
(b) before it ceases to be enforceable
(c) no such condition necessary
(d) none of above.
26. An acceptance can be revoked
(a) at any time before the communication of acceptance is complete as against
the promisee
(b) after its acceptance comes to the knowledge of the promisee
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) neither (a) nor (b).
27. A proposal stands revoked
(a) by communication of notice of revocation by the proposer
(b) by failure of acceptor to fulfil a condition precedent
(c) by death or insanity of proposer to the knowledge of acceptor
(d) all the above.
28. A proposal can be accepted
(a) by notice of acceptance
(b) by performance of condition of proposal
(c) by acceptance of consideration for a reciprocal promise
(d) all the above.
29. Enforceable agreements are the one
(a) made by free consent
(b) parties to the contract are competent to enter into an agreement
(c) having lawful consideration & lawful object
(d) all the above.
30. Competency to contract relates to
(a) age of the parties
(b) soundness of mind of the parties
(c) both age & soundness of mind
(d) intelligence of the parties.
31. Which one of the following is correct
(a) past consideration is no consideration
4
(b) consideration can be past, present or future
(c) consideration can only be present
(d) consideration can only be present & future.
32. Past consideration is valid in
(a) England only
(b) India only
(c) both in England & India
(d) neither in England nor in India.
33. An agreement not to raise the plea of limitation is
(a) valid & binding
(b) void
(c) voidable
(d) illegal.
34. A letter of acceptance sent by post is lost in transit
(a) there is a concluded contract as the letter of acceptance is put in the course of
transmission
(b) there is no concluded contract as the acceptance has not come to the
knowledge of the proposer
(c) there is no concluded contract as the acceptance has not been communicated
to the proposer
(d) all the above.
35. When the consent to the contract is caused by coercion, the contract under
section 19 is
(a) valid
(b) voidable
(c) void
(d) illegal.
36. A’s son forged B’s name to a promissory note. B under threat of prosecuting
A’s son obtains a bond from A for the amount of the forged note. If B sues on this
bond the court
(a) has no jurisdiction in this case
(b) must not set aside the bond
(c) may set aside the bond
(d) none of above.
37. When the consent is caused by misrepresent-tation, the contract under
section 19 is
(a) valid
(b) void
(c) voidable
(d) illegal.
38. When the consent is caused by undue influence, the contract under section
19A is
5
(a) valid
(b) void
(c) voidable
(d) illegal.
39. Where both the parties are under mistake as to matter of fact, the contract
under section 20 is
(a) voidable
(b) void
(c) valid
(d) illegal.
40. Where one of the parties is under a mistake as to matter of fact the contract is
(a) valid
(b) void
(c) voidable
(d) illegal.
41. Considerations & objects are unlawful where it is
(a) forbidden by law or defeat the provision of any law
(b) which is fraudulent
(c) which is immoral & against the public policy
(d) all the above.
42. If only a part of the consideration or object is unlawful, the contract under
section 24 shall be
(a) valid
(b) voidable
(c) void
(d) illegal.
43. A contract without consideration under section 25 is
(a) valid
(b) voidable
(c) void
(d) illegal.
44. Consideration should be something in return of promise which
(a) both the law and parties regard, as having some value
(b) only law regards a having some value
(c) only the parties regard some value
(d) only adequate value necessary.
45. If the proposer prescribes the mode & manner of acceptance, the acceptance
(a) can be in any manner & mode
(b) should be in the manner & mode prescribed
(c) can be in any reasonable mode & manner
(d) all the above.
46. Parties are not competent to contract if any of them is
6
(a) minor
(b) insane
(c) declared unqualified
(d) all the above.
47. Consent is free under section 14 if not caused by
(a) coercion & undue influence
(b) fraud and misrepresentation
(c) mistake subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 22
(d) all the above.
48. Consent under section 13 means
(a) agreeing on the same thing in the same sense
(b) agreeing on the same thing at the same time
(c)agreeing on the same thing at different time
(d) agreeing on different things at different times.
49. A contract which is valid initially however, ceases to be enforceable
subsequently, the contract
(a) remains valid
(b) becomes voidable when enforceable
(c) becomes void when it enforceable
(d) becomes void since inception.
50. Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain or not capable of being made
certain under section 29 is
(a) void
(b) voidable
(c) illegal
(d) valid
51. An agreement in restraint of trade under section 27 is
(a) valid
(b) voidable
(c) void
(d) unenforceable
52. An agreement restraint of trade is valid under section 27 if relates to
(a) sale of goodwill
(b) mutual adjustment
(c) business contingency
(d) none of the above.
53. An agreement not to pursue any legal remedy to enforce the rights under
section 28 is
(a) valid
(b) voidable
(c) void
(d) unenforceable.
7
54. An agreement not to persue legal remedies but to refer the dispute to the
arbitrator, under section 28 is
(a) valid
(b) voidable
(c) void
(c) void
(d) unenforceable.
55. An agreement to refer the dispute to the arbitrator is valid
(a) in respect of disputes already arisen
(b) in respect of disputes which may arise in future
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) neither (a) nor (b)
56. An agreement by way of wager under section 30 is
(a) void
(b) voidable
(c) valid
(d) unenforceable
57. An agreement in connection with horse- racing under section 30 is
(a) unlawful
(b) void
(c) voidable
(d) valid.
58. An agreement in restraint of marriage under section 26 is
(a) void
(b) voidable
(c) valid
(d) unenforceable
59. If only a part of the consideration or object is unlawful, the contract under
section 24 shall be
(a) valid to the extent the same are lawful
(b) void to the extent the same are unlawful
(c) void as a whole
(d) valid as a whole.
60. An agreement shall be void on account of
(a) mistake of fact by one party
(b) mistake of fact by both the parties
(c) mistake of foreign law
(d) both (a) & (b).
61. Coercion which vitiates free consent under section 15 is
(a) committing or threatening to commit any act which is forbidden by law
(b) committing or threatening to commit any act which is forbidden by Indian
Penal Code
8
(c) unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property with an intention to
causing any person to enter into an agreement
(d) all the above.
62. What is correct of a standard form contract
(a) it is a valid contract
(b) one party has no choice but to accept & sign the contract
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) the consent is not a free consent.
63. Law of contract primarily
(a) specifies the circumstances in which promises are binding on the parties to
the contract
(b) lays down certain norms by which the parties are bound
(c) lays down the circumstances under which a promise may be made
(d) all the above.
64. Misrepresentation under section 18 means
(a) a positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the
person making it, not true but he believes it to be true
(b) any breach of duty, which gains an advantage to the person committing it, by
misleading another to his prejudice
(c) causing a party to make an agreement to make a mistake as to the subject
matter of contract
(d) all the above.
65. A person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another by
undue influence if the mental capacity is affected temporarily or permanently by
(a) reason of age
(b) reason of illness
(c) mental or bodily distress
(d) all the above.
66. An agreement to remain unmarried is
(a) valid
(b) voidable
(c) void
(d) unenforceable.
67. A general offer open for world at large can be accepted
(a) by sending a communication of acceptance
(b) by complying with the conditions of offer
(c) by tendering himself to comply the conditions of offer
(d) none of the above.
68. The term consensus ad-idem means
(a) general consensus
(b) reaching an agreement
(c) meeting of minds upon the same thing in( the same sense
9
(d) all the above.
69. Which one of the following does not amount to fraud
(a) suggestion as a fact which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be
true
(b) active concealment of a fact
(c) a representation made without knowing it to be false, honestly believing it to
be true
(d) a promise made without any intention of performing it.
70. Contract without consideration made in writing & registered and made on
account of natural love and affection is
(a) void
(b) voidable
(c) valid
(d) unenforceable.
71. Inadequacy of consideration does not make the contract
(a) void
(b) voidable
(c) unenforceable
(d) neither void nor voidable.
72. Inadequacy of consideration is relevant in determining the question of
(a) fraud
(b) misrepresentation
(c) undue influence
(d) free consent.
73. Agreement without consideration is valid
(a) when made out of love & affection due to near relationship
(b) when made to compensate a person who has already done something
voluntarily
(c) when made to pay a time barred debt
(d) all the above.
74. A contract based on the happening or non- happening of a future event under
section 31 is called
(a) a contingent contract
(b) a wagering contract
(c) a contract marked with uncertainty and hence void
(d) none of the above.
75. A contingent contract to do or not to do anything on the happening of an
uncertain future event under section 32
(a) is never enforceable
(b) becomes enforceable only on the happening of that event
(c) enforceable since the time of making it
(d) becomes enforceable in the immediate possibility of happening of that event.
10
76. A contingent contract
(a) is void
(b) never becomes void
(c) becomes void when the event becomes impossible
(d) is voidable.
77. A contingent agreement based on an impossible event under section 36
(a) is void
(b) is void till the impossibility is known
(c) becomes void on the knowledge of impossibility
(d) all the above.
78. What is true of misrepresentation
(a) it is the same thing as fraud
(b) it renders the contract voidable
(c) it may be due to innocence
(d) both (b) & (c).
79. Two persons have the capacity to contract under section 11
(a) if both are major
(b) if both are not of unsound mind
(c) if none is declared unqualified to contract
(d) all are correct.
80. A contract with minor is
(a) voidable at the instance of the minor
(b) voidable at the instance of other party
(c) void
(d) valid.
81. An agreement to do an act impossible in itself under section 56 is
(a) void
(b) valid
(c) voidable
(d) unenforceable.
82. A contingent contract based on the specified uncertain event happening
within a fixed time under section 35
(a) remains valid even if the event does not happen within that fixed time
(b) becomes void at the expiration of the time fixed
(c) becomes void if the happening of that event becomes impossible before the
expiry of time fixed
(d) both (b) & (c).
83. A contingent contract based on the specified uncertain event not happening
within a fixed time under section 35
(a) can be enforced if the event does not happen within the time fixed
(b) can be enforced if before the expiry of time fixed, it becomes certain that such
an event shall not happen
11
(c) cannot be enforced at all, being void
(d) both (a) & (b).
84. A promisor can perform
(a) the promise himself
(b) the promise through his representa-tive competent to perform
(c) the promise through his representa-tive irrespective of the competency of that
representative
(d) both (a) & (b).
85. A promisee can accept the performance (a) from the promisor himself
(b) from the representative of the promisor competent to perform
(c) from a third person
(d) all the above.
86. In case of joint promise, generally the performance must be by
(a) all the promisors jointly
(b) any one of them individually
(c) one not authorised to perform
(d) none of the above.
87. In cases of joint promise generally a promisee can compel
(a) all the joint promisors to perform
(b) any one of them to perform
(c) some of them to perform
(d) all the above.
88. Generally, the joint promisors can
(a) compel each other to contribute equally
(b) not to compel each other to contribute equally
(c) cannot compel each other to contribute
(d) none of the above.
89. Where one of the joint promisors makes a default in contribution of
performance
(a) the other joint promisors have no right against the defaulter
(b) have to bear the loss in equal share
(c) not supposed to bear the loss
(d) the contract becomes void to that extent.
90. In case of default by joint promisors the promisee
(a) can sue any one of them for the entire promise
(b) can sue any one of them to the extent of his share in the joint promise
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) cannot sue any single promisee.
91. In case of death of a joint promisor(s) the promisee
(a) can enforce the contract against the survivor(s) of the said joint promisor(s)
alongwith the joint promisors who are alive
12
(b) cannot enforce the contract against the survivor(s) of the said joint
promisor(s)
(c) both (a) & (b)
(d) cannot enforce the contract against any of them.
92. In a contract not specifying the time for performance, the promisor can
perform the contract
(a) within any time howsoever long it may be
(b) within the shortest time
(c) within a reasonable time
(d) none of the above.
93. What is a reasonable time for performance of a contract
(a) is a question of fact
(b) is a question of law
(c) is a mixed question of fact & law
(d) is a question of prudence.
94. A contract not specifying the place of performance
(a) performed at any place to the knowledge of the promisee
(b) the promisor has to apply to the promisee for appointment of a place of
performance & perform the promise at that place
(c) the promisor need not seek any instructions from the promisee as to the place
of performance
(d) the promisor can perform the promise at a place other than the place
appointed by the promisee.
95. In case the promisee prescribes the manner and time of performance of
promise
(a) the performance must be in the manner and at the time prescribed
(b) the performance can be in a different manner but at the time prescribed
(c) the performance can be in the manner prescribed but at a time beyond the
time prescribed
(d) the performance need not be in the manner and time prescribed.
96. If the time of performance of the contract is the essence of the contract and
the promisor fails to perform the contract by the specified time
(a) the contract becomes void
(b) the contract remains valid
(c) the contract becomes voidable at the instance of the promisee
(d) the contract becomes unenforceable.
97. If the time is not the essence of the contract the failure to perform the contract
by the specified time makes the contract
(a) void
(b) voidable at the instance of the promisee
(c) remains valid but the promisee can claim compensation for the loss suffered
by him by such failure
13
(d) remains valid & can be performed at any subsequent time without being liable
for the loss suffered by the promisee.
98. In contract for sale of immovable property the presumption is that the time is
(a) the essence of the contract
(b) not the essence of the contract
(c) the essence of the contract but failure does not make the contract voidable
(d) not the essence of the contract but makes the contract voidable at the
instance of the other party.
99. Reciprocal promises provide for doing certain things which are legal & certain
others which are illegal, under section 57
(a) the entire set of promises is void
(b) the first set is voidable, but the second set is void
(c) the first set is valid but the second set is void
(d) the entire set of promises is valid.
100. A contract, performance of which becomes impossible or unlawful becomes
(a) void when the performance becomes unlawful or impossible
(b) void
(c) voidable when the performance becomes impossible.
(d) neither becomes void nor voidable
Summary of Indian Contract Act 1872
The Indian Contract Act occupies the most important place in the Commercial
Law. Without contract Act, it would have been difficult to carry on trade. It is not
only the business community which is concerned with the Contract Act, but it
affects everybody.
The objective of the Contract Act is to ensure that the rights and obligations
arising out of a contract are honoured and that legal remedies are made available
to an aggrieved party against the party failing to honour his part of agreement.
The Indian Contract Act makes it obligatory that this is done and compels the
defaulters to honour their commitments. According to Sir William Anson. “The
objective of law is to maintain order because only in a state of order can a man
feel safe and secure.
Division of the Indian Contract Act :
In the past, Indian Contract Act had a wide scope and included:
1. General Principles of Contract – Sections 1 to 75.
2. Sale of Goods Act – Sections 76-123.
3. Contracts of Indemnity and Guarantee – Sections 124 = 147.
4. Contracts of Bailment and Pledge – Sections 148-181.
5. Contracts of Agency – Sections 182 – 238.
6. Partnership Act – Sections 239-266.
(a) “Proposal”:
14
When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from
doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of the other to such act or
abstinence, he said to make a proposal.
(b) “Promise”:
When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the
proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal when accepted, becomes a promise.
(c) “Promisor and Promise”:
The person making the proposal is called the “Promisor” and the person
accepting the proposal is called the “promise”.
(d) “Consideration”:
When at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or
abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to
abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a
consideration for the promise.
(e) “Agreement”:
Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each
other is an agreement.
(f) “Reciprocal Promises”:
Promises which form the consideration or part of the consideration for each other
are called reciprocal promises.
(g) “Void agreement”:
An agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void.
(h) “Contract” – An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
(i) “Voidable Contract”:
An agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the
parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract.
(j) “Void Contract”:
A contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes a void contract.
(k) “Plaintiff”:
A person who files a suit in a court of law against the another for breech of
contract is called the plaintiff.
(l) “Defendant”:
The person against whom a suit has been filed in court and who has to defend
against the charges of breach of contract is called the defendant.
FAMILY LAW / HINDU LAW – UNIT I — REVISION STUDY NOTES FOR
LL.B
15
helpful to living beings and things, duty, law and usage or custom having in the
force of law and also a valid Rajashasana
In Shastri v Muldas SC AIR 1961, SC has held that various sub sects of Hindus
such as Swaminarayan, Satsangis, Arya Samajis are also Hindus by religion
because they follow the same basic concept of Hindu Philosophy. Converts and
Reconverts are also Hindus.
If only one parent is a Hindu, the person can be a Hindu if he/she has been raised
as a Hindu. In Sapna vs State of kerala, Kerala HC, the son of Hindu father and
Christian mother was held to be a Christian
1. Hindus by birth
2. Off shoots of Hinduism
3. Persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews
4. Converts to Hinduism
5. Reconverts to Hinduism
6. Harijans
7. Aboriginal Tribes
16
Constitutional enactments are:
Several principles of Hindu Law have been held invalid on the ground that they
infringe the Fundamental Rights. For example, the rule of Damdupat is hit by
Article 15(1) of the Constitution and as such would be void under Article 13(1).
02. SMRITIS
Smriti means “what is remembered”. With Smritis, a systematic study and
teaching of Vedas started. Many sages, from time to time, have written down the
concepts given in Vedas. So it can be said that Smritis are a written memoir of the
knowledge of the sages. Immediately after the Vedic period, a need for the
regulation of the society arose.
17
Dayabhag that is applicable in the Bengal and Orissa area. Mitakshara literally
means ‘New Word’ and is paramount source of law in all of India.
04. CUSTOMS
Most of the Hindu law is based on customs and practices followed by the people
all across the country. Even smrutis have given importance to customs. They
have held customs as transcendent law and have advised the Kings to give
decisions based on customs after due religious consideration. Customs are of
four types:
Ancient
Continuous
Certain
Reasonable
Not against morality
Not against public policy
Not against any law
PROOF OF CUSTOM
The burden of proving a custom is on the person who alleges it. Usually, customs
are proved by instances. In the case of Prakash vs Parmeshwari, it was held that
one instance does not prove a custom. However, in the case of Ujagar vs Jeo, it
was held that if a custom has been brought to notice of the court repeated, no
further proof is required.
Modern Sources
JUDICIAL DECISIONS (PRECEDENTS)
The doctrine of stare decisis started in India from the British rule. All cases are
now recorded and new cases are decided based on existing case laws.Today, the
judgment of SC is binding on all courts across India and the judgment of HC is
binding on all courts in that state.
18
LEGISLATURES / STATUTES (CODIFICATION OF HINDU LAW)
In modern society, this is the only way to bring in new laws. The parliament, in
accordance with the needs society, constitutes new laws. For example, a new
way of performing Hindu marriages in Tamil Nadu that got rid of rituals and
priests was rejected by the SC on the basis that new customs cannot be invented.
However, TN later passed an act that recognized these marriages.
The right to Hindu joint family property is not by birth but only on the death of the
father.
19
The system of devolution of property is by inheritance. The legal heirs (sons)
have definite shares after the death of the father.
UNIT – II
Marriage and Kinship
Evolution of the Institution of Marriage and Family
Definition and Forms of Hindu Marriage
20
Asura (When groom buys bride through money)
Gandharva (When voluntary union against parent’s wishes)
Rakshasa (When forcible abduction / kidnapping)
Paishacha (when intoxicated)
Monogamy: The first essential condition for a valid marriage is that neither
party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. Monogamy is the
voluntary union for life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all
others. In the case of Varadrajan v. State, it was held that a party to be
bigamous marriage could be punished only upon the proof of the prior
marriage having been solemnized according to religious ceremonies and
customs.
Mental Capacity: A marriage is bliss. A sound mind is a key to a happy
married life. Clause (ii) of Section 5 of the Act lays down as one of the
conditions for a Hindu Marriage that neither party must be suffering from
unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, and insanity.
Age of Parties: The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down the condition that
at the time of the marriage, the bridegroom must have completed the age of 21
and the bride the age of 18 years. In the case of Rabindra Prasad v. Sita Devi,
the court held that a child marriage is not void and observed that “the
marriage solemnized in violation of Section 5 (iii) remains unaffected.
Degrees of Prohibited Relationship: Clause 10 of Section 5 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 lays down that no marriage is valid if it is made between
persons related to each other within the prohibited degrees unless such
marriage is sanctioned by custom or usage governing both the parties.
21
this fact at the time of marriage; (b) he did not have marital intercourse after
discovering the fact; (c) petition is brought within one year from the date of
marriage
Impotency and other physical infirmities: If the bridegroom is found
impotent after the marriage, the marriage can be set-aside under section 12 of
the Act. Such marriage is voidable.
Inter-caste Marriage: The Government of India enacted ‘Hindu Marriages
Validating Act, 1949, which validates intercaste marriages and also marriages
between Hindus, Jains and Sikhs. In the case of Bai Gulab v. Jiwan Lal, the
Bombay High Court upheld the validity of Anuloma marriages.
Doctrine of Factum Valet: It is a doctrine of Hindu law, which was originally
enunciated by the author of the Dayabhaga, and also recognized by the
followers of the Mitakshara, that ‘a fact cannot be altered by a hundred texts’.
The text referred to are directory texts, as opposed to mandatory texts. The
maxim, therefore, means that if a fact is accomplished, i.e., if an act is done
and finally completed, although it may contravene a hundred directory texts,
the fact will nevertheless stand, and the act done will be deemed to be legal
and binding.This doctrine came from Roman maxim ‘factum valet quod fieri
non debuit’ which literally means that ‘what ought not to be done become
valid when done’.In the case of Venkatrama v. State, the court has applied the
doctrine of factum valet to child marriage and held that the marriage itself is
valid though penal consequences are attracted. The child marriages are
neither void nor voidable. They continue to be valid even though punishable.
Matrimonial Remedies
-> In case, husband or wife lives separately, then they can avail Conjugal Rights.
-> In case, if there was any valid reason to live separately, then they cannot avail
Conjugal Rights
Case Laws:
Matrimonial remedies
Restitution of conjugal rights – Section 9
Constitutionality of Section 9
Remedies available
Subsistance
Withdrawal from the society
Validity of agreement of separation
22
Reasonable excuse
Defence available to restitution petition
Can a husband compel his wife to resign her job and stay with him?
Petition for restitution
Void Marriages
Section 11. Void marriages :- Any marriage solemnized after the commencement
of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party
thereto, against the other party be so declared by a decree of nullity if it
contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v),
Section 5.”
Voidable Marriages
A petition can be filed on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) and (2)
of Section 13.
Judicial or legal separation means living apart by the parties to the marriage. If a
decree for judicial separation is passed by a competent Court, it is no longer
obligatory for either party to cohabit with the other. Such a decree does not sever
or dissolve the marriage. Yet it is equally true that certain mutual rights and
obligations arising from the marriage are suspended when such a decree is
passed.
Grounds
23
Adultery: Extra-marital voluntary sexual intercourse. In order to establish
extra-marital, one has to depend on ancillary facts which may be:-
circumstantial evidence, birth of a child to the wife when there is no evidence
of contact with her, contracting of a venereal disease, admission on the part
of the respondent, discovery of letters which might contain such contents
which suggest sexual relationship between the two
Cruelty: There is mental as well as physical cruelty. To establish legal
cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous
ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, verbal abuse and insult, refusal
to speak, ill-treatment of children, refusal to have children, etc
Desertion: Desertion is the act of forsaking or abandoning or the act of
quitting without leave with an intention not to return. Desertion has been
defined in the Indian Divorce Act as “implying an abandonment against the
wish of the person changing it”. In the case Shanti Devi v. Govind Singh, it
has been observed that for constituting ‘desertion’ two essential conditions
must be fulfilled namely (i) the factum of separation; and (ii) the intention to
bring cohabitation permanently to an end
Conversion: Ceasing to be a Hindu by conversion on the part of the either
party to the marriage, forms a ground for a decree of judicial separation.
Unsoundness of Mind: The petitioner has to establish that the respondent
has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or
intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that
the petitioner cannot be expected to live with the respondent.
Leprosy: If either of the party has been suffering from venereal disease in
communicable form, then the other party can present a petition for decree of
judicial separation. The leprosy which is maligned or venomous can be
termed as virulent. Lepromatous leprosy is virulent and incurable.
Venereal Disease: It requires to establish for judicial separation that the
respondent has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable
form.
Renunciation of the world: The renunciation implies a religious order which
operates as a civil death and, therefore, the other party has been given right to
obtain a decree of judicial separation or divorce.
Presumption of death: That the other party has not been heard of as alive
for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally
have heard of him, had that party been alive.
Additional Grounds
Section 10(2) of the Act empowers the Court to rescind the decree of the judicial
separation if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.
1. the decree has been obtained by showing reasonable excuse for his or her
absence
24
2. the parties cohabited with each other after the decree was passed or they
have resumed living together
3. the opposite party has condoned the offence
Under Hindu Custom, Marriage is considered as sacred and they have this
relation by the blessings of the God. They believed the concept of “marriages are
made in heaven”. Hindus considered the separation of couple as a sin and hence
the question of living separately did not arise in olden days. Once married, the tie
lasts till the end of life.
Dissolution of Marriage
Alternate Relief
Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states “In any proceeding under this
Act, on a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, except in so
far as the petition is founded on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii), (vi) and
(vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the court may, if considers it just to do
having regard to the circumstances of the case, pass instead a decree for judicial
separation”.
25
Since Divorce is the last remedy available to put an end to the marital tie, the
parties can decide to separate amicably, divorce petition may be submitted by
any one of the spouses to the District Court on any one of the grounds given in
Section 13 of the Act to take divorce on mutual consent. Divorce by mutual
consent was not incorporated in the original Act of 1955. It has been inserted in
the Section 13-B by the Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1976.
In the case of Meghanatha Nayyar v. Smt. Susheela, the Madras High Court had
observed that “Section 14 provides restrictions presumably designed to prevent
party from taking recourse to legal proceedings before the parties have made real
effort to save their marriage from disaster. It is founded on public policy because
marriage is the foundation of civil society and no part of the laws and constitution
of a country can be of more vital importance to the subject than those which
regulated the manner and conditions of forming and if necessary, of dissolving
marriage contract.”
Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides: “When a marriage has been
dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the
decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired
without an appeal have been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has
been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again.”
Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states: “Any marriage between two
Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if on the date of
such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of
Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 18600, shall apply accordingly.”
26
In Gopal Lal V. State of Rajasthan, it has been observed that where a spouse
contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the
spouse would be of guilty of bigamy under Section 17 of the Act and also under
Section 494 IPC if it is proved that the second marriage was a valid one in the
sense that the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been
actually performed.
Case Laws:
Amar Kanta Sen v. Sovana Sen, AIR 1960 Cal. 438 159
Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 1398
Other Laws
23 AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE
24 CLAIMANT TO MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE A HINDU
25 AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE MAY BE ALTERED ON CHANGE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES
26 DEBTS TO HAVE PRIORITY
27 MAINTENANCE WHEN TO BE A CHARGE
28 EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ON RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE
29 REPEALS
30 SAVINGS
CASE LAWS:
27
Section 2(h) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines contract as “An agreement
enforceable by law”. Thus, formation of a contract there must be an agreement,
and the agreement should be enforceable by law.
The agreement will create rights and obligations that may be enforced in the
courts. The normal method of enforcement is an action for damages for breach of
contract, though in some cases the court may order performance by the party in
default.
Enforceability of Contracts
Proposal or Offer
PROPOSAL DEFINITION [SECTION 2(A)]
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.
Communication of Proposal
28
COMMUNICATION, ACCEPTANCE AND REVOCATION OF PROPOSALS
[SECTION 3]
The communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the
revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made
by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he
intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has
the effect of communicating it.
Thus, a proposal may be communicated in any way which has the effect of laying
before the offeree the willingness to do or abstain. It may for example be done by
words of mouth, or by writing, or even by conduct.
A fire broke out in the defendant’s farm. He believed that he was entitled to the
free services of Upton Fire Brigade and, therefore, summoned it. The Brigade put
out the fire. It then turned out that the defendant’s farm was not within free
service zone of the Upton, which therefore, claimed compensation for the
services. The court said: “The truth of the matter is that the defendant wanted the
services of Upton; he asked for the services of Upton and Upton, in response to
that request, provided the services. Hence, the services were rendered on an
implied promise to pay for them.
An offer cannot be accepted unless and until it has been brought to the
knowledge of the person to whom it is made. This principle enabled the
Allahabad High Court in Lalman v Gauri Datt to deal with a matter involving a very
crucial question on this point.
Defendant’s nephew absconded from home. He sent his servant in search of the
boy. When the servant had left, the defendant by handbills offered to pay Rs.501
to anybody discovering the boy. The servant came to know of this offer only
when he had already traced the missing child. He, however, brought an auction to
recover the reward. But his action failed. BAERJI J explains: “In my opinion a suit
like the present can only be founded on a contract. In order to constitute a
contract, there must be an acceptance of an offer and there can be no acceptance
unless there is knowledge to the offer”.
Intention to Contract
There is no provision in the Indian Contract Act requiring that an offer or its
acceptance should be made with the intention of creating a legal relationship. But
in English law it is a settled principle that “to create a contract there must be a
common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations.”
29
Case law: Balfour v Balfour
The defendant and his wife were enjoying leave in England. When the defendant
was due to return to Ceylon, where he was employed, his wife was advised, by
reason of her health, to remain in England. The defendant agreed to send her an
amount of 30 pound a month for the probable expenses of maintenance. He did
send the amount for some time, but afterwards differences arose which resulted
in their separation and the allowance fell into arrears. The wife’s action to recover
the arrears was dismissed.
Business matters
Supreme Court’s view
The Supreme Court noted the general proposition that in addition to the existence
of an agreement and the presence of consideration there is also the third
contractual element in the form of intention of the parties to create legal relations.
Letters of intent
A letter of intent merely indicates a party’s intention to enter into a contract on
the lines suggested in the letter. It may becomes a preclude to a contract.
However, where a letter stated that it would be followed by a detailed purchase
order which carried an arbitration clause, it was held that the letter was not a
supply order and the arbitration clause contained in it did not by itself fructify
into an arbitration agreement.
General Offers
Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration [SECTION 8]
Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any
consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is
an acceptance of the proposal.
30
An offer should be distinguished from an invitation to receive offers. When a man
advertises that he has got a stock of books to sell, or houses to let, there is no
offer to be bound by any contract. “Such advertisements are offers to negotiate –
offers to receive offers – offers to chaffer”.
Harvey v Facey
The plaintiff relegraphed to the defendants, writing: “Will you sell us Bumper Hall
Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price”. The defendants replied also by telegram:
“Lowest price for Bumber Hall Pen, 900 pound.” The plaintiff immediately sent
their last telegram stating: “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for 900 pound
asked by you.” The defendants refused to sell the plot.
The Lordships pointed out that in their first telegram, the plaintiffs asked two
questions, first, as to the willingness to sell and, second, as to the lower price.
The defendants answered only the second, and gave only the lowest price. They
reserved their answer as to the willingness to sell. Thus, they made no offer. The
last telegram of the plaintiffs was an offer to buy, but that was never accepted by
the defendants.
Thus “acceptance” is the assent given to a proposal, and it has the effect of
converting the proposal into promise.
1. Communication to Offeror
2. Communication to Acceptor
3. When Communication is not necessary
Communication of Acceptance
ACCEPTANCE BY EXTERNAL MANIFESTATION OR OVERT ACT.
SHAH J says “An agreement does not result from a mere state of mind: intent to
accept an offer or even a mental resolve to accept an offer does not give rise to a
contract. There must be… some external manifestation of that intent by speech,
writing or other act.”
31
B had been supplying coal to a railway company without any formal agreement. B
suggested that a formal agreement should be drawn up. The agents of both the
parties met and drew up a draft agreement. It had some blanks when it was sent
to B for his approval. He filled up the blanks including the name of an arbitrator
and then returned it to the company. The agent of the company put the draft in
his drawer and it remained there without final approval having been signified. B
kept up his supply of coals but on the new terms and also received payment on
the new terms. A dispute having arisen B refused to be bound by the agreement.
ACCEPTANCE BY CONDUCT
Mere mental assent to an offer does not conclude a contract either under the
Indian Contract Act or in English Law.
Caselaw: Powell v Lee
BOWEN LJ observed as: “But there is this clear gloss to be made upon that
doctrine, that as notification of acceptance is required for the benefit of the
person who makes the offer, he may dispense with notice to himself… and there
can be no doubt that where the offeror expressly or impliedly intimates a
particular mode of acceptance as sufficient to make the bargain binding it is only
necessary for the other person to follow the indicated method of acceptance; and
if the person making the offer expressly or impliedly intimates in his offer that it
will be sufficient to act on the proposal without communicating acceptance of it
32
to himself, performance of the condition is a sufficient acceptance without
notification”.
MODE OF COMMUNICATION
Acceptance should be made in prescribed manner
A offered to buy flour from B requesting that acceptance should be sent by the
wagon which brought the offer. B sent his acceptance by post, thinking that this
would reach the offeror more speedily. But the letter arrived after the time of the
wagon. A was held to be not bound by the acceptance.
The defendant in this case had applied for allotment of 100 shares in the plaintiff
company. A letter of allotment addressed to the defendant at his residence was
posted in due time, but it never reached the defendant. Nevertheless he was held
bound by the acceptance.
33
and the delivery of the acceptance can be utilised by the acceptor for revoking
his acceptance by a speedier communication which will overtake the acceptance.
Counter proposals
An acceptance containing additions, limitations, or other modifications shall be
rejection of the offer and shall constitute a counter-offer.
It was, therefore, held “that he could not content that the allotment was void on
the ground of non-fulfillment of the condition as he had by his conduct waived
the conditions.
PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE
34
An acceptance is sometimes made subject to final approval. A provisional
acceptance of this kind does not ordinarily bind either party until the final
approval is given.
Lapse of Offer
1. Notice of revocation
2. Lapse of Time
3. By failure to accept condition precedent
4. By death or insanity of offerer
Revocation of Acceptance
Section 5: Revocation of proposals and acceptances
A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its
acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.
NOTICE OF REVOCATION
Withdrawal before expiry of fixed period
Where an offeror gives the offeree an option to accept within a fixed period, he
may withdraw it even before the expiry of that period.
The defendant left an offer to sell a quantity of indigo at the plaintiff’s office
allowing him eight days’ time to give his answer. On the 4th day however the
defendant revoked his proposal. The plaintiff accepted it on the 5th day. Holding
the acceptance was useless.
Where the agreement to keep the offer open for a certain period of time is for
some consideration, the offeror cannot cancel it before the expiry of that period.
35
Revocation of General Offers
In the case of an auction, “the assent is signified on the part of the seller by
knocking down the hammer”. A bid may be retracted before the hammer is down.
A liquor ship was knocked down to a bidder at a public auction. This was subject
to the confirmation by the Chief Commissioner who had the power before
granting the licence to inquire into the financial condition of the bidder. The
bidder had to pay one-sixth part of the price immediately and in case of any
default on his part the Government had the power to re-auction the shop and the
shortfall, if any, was recoverable from the bidder. He failed to pay one-sixth part
and, therefore, the Chief Commissioner did not confirm the bid and ordered
resale. Resale realized much less than the original bid and the question of
bidder’s liability to pay the shortfall arose.
The court said: It is not disputed that the Chief Commissioner had disapproved of
the bid offered by the respondent. If the Chief Commissioner had granted
sanction in favor of the respondent, then there would have been a completed
transaction and he would have been liable for any shortfall on the resale.
LAPSE OF TIME
An offer lapses on the expiry of the time, if any, fixed for acceptance. Where an
offer says that it shall remain open for acceptance up to a certain date, it has to
be accepted within that date. For example, where an offer was to last until the end
of March and the offeree sent a telegram accepting the offer on 28th March which
was received by the offeror on 30th March, it was held that the option was duly
exercised.
In the case of Dickinson v Dodds, it was held that an offer cannot be accepted
after the death of the offeror.
Revocation of Acceptance
According to English law an acceptance once made is irrevocable. In the words
of Anson: “Acceptance is to offer what a lighted match is to a train of gunpowder.
Both do something which cannot be undone. This rule is obviously confined in its
operation only to postal acceptance. It is suggested in Anson that in other cases
“an acceptance can be revoked at any time before acceptance is complete,
provided, of course, that the revocation itself is communicated before the
acceptance arrives.
In India, on the other hand, acceptance is generally revocable. An acceptor may
cancel his acceptance by a speedier mode of communication which will reach
earlier than the acceptance itself. Section 5 is the relevant provision.
Standard Form Contracts
Definitions
In the words of Pollock, “Consideration is the price for which the promise of the
other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.” Another
simple definition is by Justice Patterson: “Consideration means something which
is of some value in the eyes of the law….. It may be some benefit to the plaintiff or
some detriment to the defendant.”
37
When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done
or abstained from doing or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to
abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a
consideration for the promise.
It means price for which the promise of the other is bought – a valuable
considerations a price of the promise – some of value received by the promisee
as an inducement of the promise quid pro quo ( something in return) – may be of
some benefit to the plaintiff or some detriment to the defendant.
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a
promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that
promise.
The general rule is that when one party agrees to accept a lesser sum in full
payment of a debt, the debtor has given no consideration, and so the creditor is
still entitled to claim the debt in its entirety. This is not the case if the debtor
38
offers payment at an earlier date than was previously agreed, because the benefit
to the creditor of receiving payment early can be thought of as consideration for
the promise to waive the rest of the debt. This is the rule formulated in Pinnel’s
Case (1602)
Facts: The plaintiff constructed some shops in a market under the orders of the
Collector. The defendant occupied a shop and promised to pay some commission
to the plaintiff and did not pay. In an action against the defendant, it was held not
maintainable.
Court Held: The only ground for the making of the promise is the expense
incurred by the plaintiff in establishing the Ganj (market) but it is clear that
anything done in that way was not ‘at the desior’ of the defendants so as to
constitute consideration. The act was the result not of the promise but of the
Collector’s order.
He was held liable. Persons were asked to subscribe knowing the purpose for
which the money was to be applied, they knew that on the faith of their
subscription an obligation was to be incurred to pay the contractor for the work.
The promise is: ‘In consideration of your agreeing to enter into a contract to
erect, I undertake to supply money for it.’ The act of the plaintiff in entering into
contract with the contractor was done at the desire of the defendant (the
promisor) so as to constitute consideration within the meaning of Section 2(d).
Facts: The repair of a temple was in progress. As the work proceeded, more
money was required and to raise this money subscriptions were invited and a
subscription list raised. The defendant put himself down on the list for Rs. 125
39
and it was to recover this sum that the suit was filed. The plaint found the
consideration for the promise as a reliance on the promise of the subscriber that
they have incurred liabilities in repairing the temple.
Judgment: The learned judge held that there was no evidence of any request by
the subscriber to the plaintiff to do the temple repairs. Since, the temple repairs
were already in progress when the subscriptions were invited. The action was not
induced by the promise to subscribe but was rather independent of it. Hence, no
recovery was allowed.
UNILATERAL PROMISES
A unilateral promise is a promise from one side only and is intended to induce
some action by the other party. The promisee is not bound to act, for he gives no
promise from his side. But if he carries out the act desired by the promisor, he
can hold the promisor to his promise. “An act done at the request of the offeror in
response to his promise is consideration, and consideration in its essence is
nothing else but response to such a request.”
The defendant promised Rs.500 to a fund started to rebuild a mosque but
nothing had been done to carry out the repairs and reconstruction. The
subscriber was, therefore, held not liable.
Facts: The owner of a house had mortgaged it. The house was in the occupation
of his son and daughter-in-law. He told them that the house would become their
property if they paid off the mortgage debt in installments and they commenced
payment.
ESTOPPEL OF LICENSEE
A person who had acquired title to the land of a Council by adverse possession,
agreed subsequently to hold the same under a term license from the Council. On
the expiry of the term, the Council told him to hand over possession He tried to
assert his title by adverse possession. He was not allowed to do so. Whatever
rights he acquired became substituted under the new arrangement which he
voluntarily accepted. The new arrangement constituted a promissory estoppel
against him.
40
Privity of Contract and of Consideration
“PROMISEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON”
It means that as long as there is a consideration for a promise, it is immaterial
who has furnished it. It may move from the promisee, or, if the promisor has no
objection, from any other person.
Dutton v Poole
Facts: A person had a daughter to marry and in order to provide her a marriage
portion, he intended to sell a wood of which he was possessed at the time. His
son (the defendant) promised that if “the father would forbear to sell at his
request he would pay the daughter £1000”. The father accordingly forbore but the
defendant did not pay. The daughter and her husband sued the defendant for the
amount.
Judgment: The court held that if a man should say, ‘Give me a horse, I will give
your son £10’, the son may bring the action, because the gift was upon the
consideration of a profit to the son, and the father is obliged by natural affection
to provide for his children. There was such apparent consideration of affection
from the father to his children, for whom nature obliges him to provide, that the
consideration and promise to the father may well extend to the children.
The whole object of the agreement was to provide a portion to the plaintiff. It
would have been highly inequitable to allow the son to keep the wood and yet to
deprive his sister of her portion. He was accordingly held liable.
Court Held: Although the sole object of the contract was to secure a benefit to the
plaintiff, he was not allowed to sue as the contract was made with his father and
not with him. It was held that no stranger to the consideration can take advantage
of a contract, although made for his benefit.
The case laid the foundation of what subsequently came to be known as the
doctrine of “Privity of contract“, which means a contract is a contract between
the parties only and no third person can sue upon it even if it is avowedly made
for his benefit.
Facts: Plaintiffs (Dunlop & Co) sold certain goods to one Dew & Co and secured
an agreement from them not to sell the goods below the list price and that if they
sold the goods to another trader they would obtain from him a similar
undertaking to maintain the price list. Dew & Co sold the motor tyres to the
defendants (Selfridge & Co) who agreed not to sell the tyres to any private
customer at less than the list prices. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach
of this contract.
41
Court Held: Assuming that the plaintiffs were undisclosed principals, no
consideration moved from them to the defendants and that the contract was
unenforceable by them. Only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it. It
cannot be conferred on a stranger to a contract as a right to enforce the contract
in personam. Also if a person with whom a contract not under seal has been
made is to be able to enforce it, consideration must have given by him.
1. Consideration must move from the promisee and the promisee only.
2. A contract cannot be enforced by a person who is not a party to it even
though it is made for his benefit.
PRIVITY OF CONSIDERATION
In India, the view is opposite of the fundamental propositions of English law.
Acording to Section 2(d), it is not necessary that consideration should be
funished by the promisee. A promise is enforceable if there is some
consideration for it and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the promisee
or any other person.
Chinnaya v Ramayya
An old lady, by deed of gift, made over certain landed property to the defendant,
her daughter. By the terms of the deed, which was registered, it was stipulated
that an annuity of Rs.653 should be paid every year to the plaintiff, who was the
sister of the old woman. The defendant on the same day executed in plaintiff’s
favour an agreement promising to give effect to the stipulation. The annuity was
however not paid and the plaintiff sued to recover it.
It was held that the deed of gift and the defendant’s promise to pay the annuity
were executed simultaneously and, therefore, they should be regarded as one
transaction and there was sufficient consideration for that transaction.
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
The rule of “Privity of contract” meant a stranger to contract cannot sue has
taken firm roots in the English Common Law. But it has been generally criticised.
Lord Denning observed that where a contract is made for the benefit of a third
person who has a legitimate interest to enforce it, it can be enforced by the third
person in the name of the contracting party or jointly with him or, if he refuses to
join, by adding him as a defendant. The third person has a right arising by way of
contract and his interest will be protected by law.
Beswick v Beswick
Facts: B was a coal merchant. The defendant was assisting him in his business.
B entered into an agreement with the defendant by which the business was to be
transferred to the defendant. B was to be employed in it as a consultant for his
life and after his death, the defendant was to pay to his widow an annuity of £5
per week, which was to come out of the business. After B’s death, the defendant
paid B’s widow only one sum of £5. The widow brought an action to recover the
arrears of the annuity and also to get specific performance of the agreement.
Court Held: That she was entitled to enforce the agreement. Thus, the plaintiff
was allowed to enforce the agreement in her personal capacity, although she was
42
not a party to it and it was considered not necessary to infer a trust in favour of
the plaintiff.
McArdle, In re:
Court Held: That as the work had all been done and nothing remained to be done
by the promisee at all, the consideration was wholly past consideration and the
beneficiaries’ agreement for the repayment to her out of the estate was nudum
pactum, a promise with no consideration to support it. Thus, the action to enforce
the promise was rejected.
POSITION IN INDIA
In India, a past consideration may arise in two ways. It may consist of services
rendered at request but without any promise at the time or it may consist of
voluntary services.
A promises to give his new Rolls-Royce car to B, provided B will fetch it from the
garage.
The act of fetching the car cannot by any stretch of imagination be called a
consideration for the promise. Even though it is the only act, the promisor
desired the promisee to do. Such an act no doubt satisfies the words of the
definition, but it does not catch its spirit. It is for this reason that English common
law insisted that “consideration must be of some value in the eyes of the law.” It
must be real and not illusory, whether adequate or not as long as the
consideration is not unreal, it is sufficient if it be of slight value only.
A agrees to sell a horse worth Rs.1000 for Rs.10. A denies that his consent to the
agreement was freely given. The inadequacy of the consideration is a fact which
the court should take into account in considering whether or not A’s consent was
freely given.
FORBEARANCE TO SUE
Forbearance to sue has always been regarded as valuable consideration. It
means that the plaintiff has a certain right of action against the defendant or any
other person and on a promise by the defendant, he refrains from bring the
action.
44
PERFORMANCE OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
Consideration must be something more than what the promisee is already bound
to do. Performance of a legal duty is no consideration for a promise.
Thomas v Thomas
Facts: “A testator, on the death of his death, had verbally said in front of
witnesses that he was desirous that his wife should enjoy certain premises for
her life. The executors, who were also the assignees, “in consideration of such
desire and of the premises,” agreed with the widow to convey the premises to her
provided she would pay to the executors the sum of 1 pound yearly towards the
ground rent and keep the said house in repair.
Court Held: On the question of consideration for the agreement between the
executors and the widow the court pointed out that the motive for the agreement
was, unquestionably, respect for the wishes of the testator. But that was no part
of the legal consideration for the agreement. Motive should not be confounded
with consideration. The agreement was, however, held to be binding as the
undertaking to pay the ground rent was a sufficient consideration.
Exceptions to Consideration
CONTRACTS UNDER SEAL IN ENGLISH LAW
In English law a contract under seal is enforceable without consideration. In the
words of Anson: “”English law recognises only two kinds of contract, the
contract made by deed that is under seal, which is called a deed or speciality, and
the simple contract. A contract under seal means a contract which is in writing
and which is signed, sealed and delivered.
45
(1) it is in writing and registered
(2) or is a promise to compensate for something done
1. No Estoppel against minor
2. No liability in contract or in tort arising out of contract
3. Doctrine of Restitution
1. Minor seeking relief, compellable to restore
2. Amended provisions in Specific Relief Act, 1963
Beneficial contracts
Contracts of marriage
Marriage of Muslim minor girl
Contracts of Apprenticeship
Trade contracts not included in beneficial contracts
Option to retire from beneficial contracts on majority
Ratification
Liability for necessaries [S. 68]
Meaning of “Necessaries”
Nature of Liability
English Law
46
Position in India
Free Consent
Definition of Free Consent [S. 14]
Coercion
DEFINITIONS [S. 15]
TECHNIQUES OF CAUSING COERCION
ACTS FORBIDDEN BY IPC
DETENTION OF PROPERTY
COMPARISON WITH ENGLISH LAW
Under Influence
DEFINITION [S. 16]
ABILITY TO DOMINATE WITH OF OTHER
BURDEN OF PROOF
PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
1. Unconscionable bargains, inequality of Bargaining Power or Economic Duress
Unconscionableness
Some instances of unconscionableness
Unconscionableness in money lending transactions
Position of dominance necessary for presumption to arise
Unconscionableness gifts
Relationship of blood, marriage or adoption not since qua non
Inequality of bargaining power
Influence distinguished from persuation
Economic duress by forcing renegotiation of terms
Exploitation of the needy
Technique of judicial intervention un unfair bargains
Rescuing employees and others from unreasonable terms
Natural justice
1. Unwarranted Statements
47
2. Breach of duty
3. Inducing mistake about subject-matter
1. By affirmation
2. By lapse of time
3. Intervention of rights of third parties
MODE OF RESCISSION
RESTITUTION
DAMAGES FOR INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION
Mistake
Definition of Consent [S. 13]
efinition of Mistake
Supplementary provisions
48
MISTAKE OF IDENTITY CAUSED BY FRAUD
DISTINCTION BETWEEN IDENTITY AND ATTRIBUTES
WHERE FRAUD DOES NOT LEAD TO MISTAKE OF IDENTITY
WHERE IDENTITY SPECIALLY IMPORTANT
Mistake as to Subject-matter
1. NON-EXISTENT SUBJECT-MATTER
2. MISTAKE AS TO TITLE OR RIGHTS
3. DIFFERENCE SUBJECT-MATTERS IN MIND
4. MISTAKE AS TO SUBSTANCE OF SUBJECT-MATTER
The agreement will create rights and obligations that may be enforced in the
courts. The normal method of enforcement is an action for damages for breach of
contract, though in some cases the court may order performance by the party in
default.
49
Enforceability of Contracts
Proposal or Offer
PROPOSAL DEFINITION [SECTION 2(A)]
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.
Communication of Proposal
COMMUNICATION, ACCEPTANCE AND REVOCATION OF PROPOSALS
[SECTION 3]
The communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the
revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made
by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he
intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has
the effect of communicating it.
Thus, a proposal may be communicated in any way which has the effect of laying
before the offeree the willingness to do or abstain. It may for example be done by
words of mouth, or by writing, or even by conduct.
50
Promises, express and implied [SECTION 9]
In so far as the proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words, the
promise is said to be express. In so far as such proposal or acceptance is made
otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied.
A fire broke out in the defendant’s farm. He believed that he was entitled to the
free services of Upton Fire Brigade and, therefore, summoned it. The Brigade put
out the fire. It then turned out that the defendant’s farm was not within free
service zone of the Upton, which therefore, claimed compensation for the
services. The court said: “The truth of the matter is that the defendant wanted the
services of Upton; he asked for the services of Upton and Upton, in response to
that request, provided the services. Hence, the services were rendered on an
implied promise to pay for them.
An offer cannot be accepted unless and until it has been brought to the
knowledge of the person to whom it is made. This principle enabled the
Allahabad High Court in Lalman v Gauri Datt to deal with a matter involving a very
crucial question on this point.
Defendant’s nephew absconded from home. He sent his servant in search of the
boy. When the servant had left, the defendant by handbills offered to pay Rs.501
to anybody discovering the boy. The servant came to know of this offer only
when he had already traced the missing child. He, however, brought an auction to
recover the reward. But his action failed. BAERJI J explains: “In my opinion a suit
like the present can only be founded on a contract. In order to constitute a
contract, there must be an acceptance of an offer and there can be no acceptance
unless there is knowledge to the offer”.
Intention to Contract
There is no provision in the Indian Contract Act requiring that an offer or its
acceptance should be made with the intention of creating a legal relationship. But
in English law it is a settled principle that “to create a contract there must be a
common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations.”
The defendant and his wife were enjoying leave in England. When the defendant
was due to return to Ceylon, where he was employed, his wife was advised, by
reason of her health, to remain in England. The defendant agreed to send her an
amount of 30 pound a month for the probable expenses of maintenance. He did
send the amount for some time, but afterwards differences arose which resulted
in their separation and the allowance fell into arrears. The wife’s action to recover
the arrears was dismissed.
51
Family & Social matters
All that the law requires is that the parties must intend legal consequences. In the
case of McGregor v McGregor, illustration of a binding engagement between a
husband and wife. Here a husband and wife withdrew their complaints under the
agreement by which the husband promised to pay her an allowance and she to
refrain from pledging his credit, the agreement was held to be a binding contract.
Business matters
Supreme Court’s view
The Supreme Court noted the general proposition that in addition to the existence
of an agreement and the presence of consideration there is also the third
contractual element in the form of intention of the parties to create legal relations.
Letters of intent
A letter of intent merely indicates a party’s intention to enter into a contract on
the lines suggested in the letter. It may becomes a preclude to a contract.
However, where a letter stated that it would be followed by a detailed purchase
order which carried an arbitration clause, it was held that the letter was not a
supply order and the arbitration clause contained in it did not by itself fructify
into an arbitration agreement.
General Offers
Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration [SECTION 8]
Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any
consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is
an acceptance of the proposal.
Harvey v Facey
The plaintiff relegraphed to the defendants, writing: “Will you sell us Bumper Hall
Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price”. The defendants replied also by telegram:
“Lowest price for Bumber Hall Pen, 900 pound.” The plaintiff immediately sent
52
their last telegram stating: “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for 900 pound
asked by you.” The defendants refused to sell the plot.
The Lordships pointed out that in their first telegram, the plaintiffs asked two
questions, first, as to the willingness to sell and, second, as to the lower price.
The defendants answered only the second, and gave only the lowest price. They
reserved their answer as to the willingness to sell. Thus, they made no offer. The
last telegram of the plaintiffs was an offer to buy, but that was never accepted by
the defendants.
Thus “acceptance” is the assent given to a proposal, and it has the effect of
converting the proposal into promise.
1. Communication to Offeror
2. Communication to Acceptor
3. When Communication is not necessary
Communication of Acceptance
ACCEPTANCE BY EXTERNAL MANIFESTATION OR OVERT ACT.
SHAH J says “An agreement does not result from a mere state of mind: intent to
accept an offer or even a mental resolve to accept an offer does not give rise to a
contract. There must be… some external manifestation of that intent by speech,
writing or other act.”
B had been supplying coal to a railway company without any formal agreement. B
suggested that a formal agreement should be drawn up. The agents of both the
parties met and drew up a draft agreement. It had some blanks when it was sent
to B for his approval. He filled up the blanks including the name of an arbitrator
and then returned it to the company. The agent of the company put the draft in
his drawer and it remained there without final approval having been signified. B
kept up his supply of coals but on the new terms and also received payment on
the new terms. A dispute having arisen B refused to be bound by the agreement.
53
ACCEPTANCE BY CONDUCT
Mere mental assent to an offer does not conclude a contract either under the
Indian Contract Act or in English Law.
Caselaw: Powell v Lee
BOWEN LJ observed as: “But there is this clear gloss to be made upon that
doctrine, that as notification of acceptance is required for the benefit of the
person who makes the offer, he may dispense with notice to himself… and there
can be no doubt that where the offeror expressly or impliedly intimates a
particular mode of acceptance as sufficient to make the bargain binding it is only
necessary for the other person to follow the indicated method of acceptance; and
if the person making the offer expressly or impliedly intimates in his offer that it
will be sufficient to act on the proposal without communicating acceptance of it
to himself, performance of the condition is a sufficient acceptance without
notification”.
MODE OF COMMUNICATION
Acceptance should be made in prescribed manner
54
the offeror clearly insists that the acceptance shall be made in the prescribed
manner. For example,
A offered to buy flour from B requesting that acceptance should be sent by the
wagon which brought the offer. B sent his acceptance by post, thinking that this
would reach the offeror more speedily. But the letter arrived after the time of the
wagon. A was held to be not bound by the acceptance.
The defendant in this case had applied for allotment of 100 shares in the plaintiff
company. A letter of allotment addressed to the defendant at his residence was
posted in due time, but it never reached the defendant. Nevertheless he was held
bound by the acceptance.
Counter proposals
An acceptance containing additions, limitations, or other modifications shall be
rejection of the offer and shall constitute a counter-offer.
55
the offer shall constitute an acceptance unless the offeror promptly objects to the
discrepancy; if he does not object, the terms of the contract shall be the terms of
the offer with the modifications contained in the acceptance.
If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the
acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable
time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall
be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but if he fails to do so,
he accepts the acceptance.
PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE
Acceptance should be of the whole of the offer. The offeree cannot accept a part
of its terms which are favourable to him and reject the rest. Such an acceptance
is another kind of counter proposal and does not bind the offeror.
INQUIRY INTO TERMS OF PROPOSAL
A mere inquiry into the terms of a proposal is not the same thing as a counter-
proposal. On acceptance of the proposal, the contract will be created on the basis
of the terms and conditions of the original proposal including arbitration clause.
It was, therefore, held “that he could not content that the allotment was void on
the ground of non-fulfillment of the condition as he had by his conduct waived
the conditions.
PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE
An acceptance is sometimes made subject to final approval. A provisional
acceptance of this kind does not ordinarily bind either party until the final
approval is given.
56
Lapse of Offer
1. Notice of revocation
2. Lapse of Time
3. By failure to accept condition precedent
4. By death or insanity of offerer
Revocation of Acceptance
Section 5: Revocation of proposals and acceptances
A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its
acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.
NOTICE OF REVOCATION
Withdrawal before expiry of fixed period
Where an offeror gives the offeree an option to accept within a fixed period, he
may withdraw it even before the expiry of that period.
The defendant left an offer to sell a quantity of indigo at the plaintiff’s office
allowing him eight days’ time to give his answer. On the 4th day however the
defendant revoked his proposal. The plaintiff accepted it on the 5th day. Holding
the acceptance was useless.
Where the agreement to keep the offer open for a certain period of time is for
some consideration, the offeror cannot cancel it before the expiry of that period.
57
Where before acceptance a proposal is renewed in some parts of it and not in its
entirety as proposed earlier and the letter purports it to supersede the earlier
communication, such proposal is no longer available for acceptance.
Revocation of Bid
In the case of an auction, “the assent is signified on the part of the seller by
knocking down the hammer”. A bid may be retracted before the hammer is down.
A liquor ship was knocked down to a bidder at a public auction. This was subject
to the confirmation by the Chief Commissioner who had the power before
granting the licence to inquire into the financial condition of the bidder. The
bidder had to pay one-sixth part of the price immediately and in case of any
default on his part the Government had the power to re-auction the shop and the
shortfall, if any, was recoverable from the bidder. He failed to pay one-sixth part
and, therefore, the Chief Commissioner did not confirm the bid and ordered
resale. Resale realized much less than the original bid and the question of
bidder’s liability to pay the shortfall arose.
The court said: It is not disputed that the Chief Commissioner had disapproved of
the bid offered by the respondent. If the Chief Commissioner had granted
sanction in favor of the respondent, then there would have been a completed
transaction and he would have been liable for any shortfall on the resale.
LAPSE OF TIME
An offer lapses on the expiry of the time, if any, fixed for acceptance. Where an
offer says that it shall remain open for acceptance up to a certain date, it has to
be accepted within that date. For example, where an offer was to last until the end
of March and the offeree sent a telegram accepting the offer on 28th March which
was received by the offeror on 30th March, it was held that the option was duly
exercised.
58
In the case of Dickinson v Dodds, it was held that an offer cannot be accepted
after the death of the offeror.
Revocation of Acceptance
According to English law an acceptance once made is irrevocable. In the words
of Anson: “Acceptance is to offer what a lighted match is to a train of gunpowder.
Both do something which cannot be undone. This rule is obviously confined in its
operation only to postal acceptance. It is suggested in Anson that in other cases
“an acceptance can be revoked at any time before acceptance is complete,
provided, of course, that the revocation itself is communicated before the
acceptance arrives.
In India, on the other hand, acceptance is generally revocable. An acceptor may
cancel his acceptance by a speedier mode of communication which will reach
earlier than the acceptance itself. Section 5 is the relevant provision.
Standard Form Contracts
Definitions
In the words of Pollock, “Consideration is the price for which the promise of the
other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.” Another
simple definition is by Justice Patterson: “Consideration means something which
is of some value in the eyes of the law….. It may be some benefit to the plaintiff or
some detriment to the defendant.”
When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done
or abstained from doing or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to
abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a
consideration for the promise.
59
It means price for which the promise of the other is bought – a valuable
considerations a price of the promise – some of value received by the promisee
as an inducement of the promise quid pro quo ( something in return) – may be of
some benefit to the plaintiff or some detriment to the defendant.
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a
promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that
promise.
The general rule is that when one party agrees to accept a lesser sum in full
payment of a debt, the debtor has given no consideration, and so the creditor is
still entitled to claim the debt in its entirety. This is not the case if the debtor
offers payment at an earlier date than was previously agreed, because the benefit
to the creditor of receiving payment early can be thought of as consideration for
the promise to waive the rest of the debt. This is the rule formulated in Pinnel’s
Case (1602)
60
An act or abstinence which is to be a consideration for the promise must be done
or promised to be done in accordance with the desire of the promisor.
Facts: The plaintiff constructed some shops in a market under the orders of the
Collector. The defendant occupied a shop and promised to pay some commission
to the plaintiff and did not pay. In an action against the defendant, it was held not
maintainable.
Court Held: The only ground for the making of the promise is the expense
incurred by the plaintiff in establishing the Ganj (market) but it is clear that
anything done in that way was not ‘at the desior’ of the defendants so as to
constitute consideration. The act was the result not of the promise but of the
Collector’s order.
He was held liable. Persons were asked to subscribe knowing the purpose for
which the money was to be applied, they knew that on the faith of their
subscription an obligation was to be incurred to pay the contractor for the work.
The promise is: ‘In consideration of your agreeing to enter into a contract to
erect, I undertake to supply money for it.’ The act of the plaintiff in entering into
contract with the contractor was done at the desire of the defendant (the
promisor) so as to constitute consideration within the meaning of Section 2(d).
Facts: The repair of a temple was in progress. As the work proceeded, more
money was required and to raise this money subscriptions were invited and a
subscription list raised. The defendant put himself down on the list for Rs. 125
and it was to recover this sum that the suit was filed. The plaint found the
consideration for the promise as a reliance on the promise of the subscriber that
they have incurred liabilities in repairing the temple.
Judgment: The learned judge held that there was no evidence of any request by
the subscriber to the plaintiff to do the temple repairs. Since, the temple repairs
were already in progress when the subscriptions were invited. The action was not
61
induced by the promise to subscribe but was rather independent of it. Hence, no
recovery was allowed.
UNILATERAL PROMISES
A unilateral promise is a promise from one side only and is intended to induce
some action by the other party. The promisee is not bound to act, for he gives no
promise from his side. But if he carries out the act desired by the promisor, he
can hold the promisor to his promise. “An act done at the request of the offeror in
response to his promise is consideration, and consideration in its essence is
nothing else but response to such a request.”
The defendant promised Rs.500 to a fund started to rebuild a mosque but
nothing had been done to carry out the repairs and reconstruction. The
subscriber was, therefore, held not liable.
Facts: The owner of a house had mortgaged it. The house was in the occupation
of his son and daughter-in-law. He told them that the house would become their
property if they paid off the mortgage debt in installments and they commenced
payment.
ESTOPPEL OF LICENSEE
A person who had acquired title to the land of a Council by adverse possession,
agreed subsequently to hold the same under a term license from the Council. On
the expiry of the term, the Council told him to hand over possession He tried to
assert his title by adverse possession. He was not allowed to do so. Whatever
rights he acquired became substituted under the new arrangement which he
voluntarily accepted. The new arrangement constituted a promissory estoppel
against him.
62
Dutton v Poole
Facts: A person had a daughter to marry and in order to provide her a marriage
portion, he intended to sell a wood of which he was possessed at the time. His
son (the defendant) promised that if “the father would forbear to sell at his
request he would pay the daughter £1000”. The father accordingly forbore but the
defendant did not pay. The daughter and her husband sued the defendant for the
amount.
Judgment: The court held that if a man should say, ‘Give me a horse, I will give
your son £10’, the son may bring the action, because the gift was upon the
consideration of a profit to the son, and the father is obliged by natural affection
to provide for his children. There was such apparent consideration of affection
from the father to his children, for whom nature obliges him to provide, that the
consideration and promise to the father may well extend to the children.
The whole object of the agreement was to provide a portion to the plaintiff. It
would have been highly inequitable to allow the son to keep the wood and yet to
deprive his sister of her portion. He was accordingly held liable.
Court Held: Although the sole object of the contract was to secure a benefit to the
plaintiff, he was not allowed to sue as the contract was made with his father and
not with him. It was held that no stranger to the consideration can take advantage
of a contract, although made for his benefit.
The case laid the foundation of what subsequently came to be known as the
doctrine of “Privity of contract“, which means a contract is a contract between
the parties only and no third person can sue upon it even if it is avowedly made
for his benefit.
Facts: Plaintiffs (Dunlop & Co) sold certain goods to one Dew & Co and secured
an agreement from them not to sell the goods below the list price and that if they
sold the goods to another trader they would obtain from him a similar
undertaking to maintain the price list. Dew & Co sold the motor tyres to the
defendants (Selfridge & Co) who agreed not to sell the tyres to any private
customer at less than the list prices. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach
of this contract.
63
FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS OF ENGLISH LAW
1. Consideration must move from the promisee and the promisee only.
2. A contract cannot be enforced by a person who is not a party to it even
though it is made for his benefit.
PRIVITY OF CONSIDERATION
In India, the view is opposite of the fundamental propositions of English law.
Acording to Section 2(d), it is not necessary that consideration should be
funished by the promisee. A promise is enforceable if there is some
consideration for it and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the promisee
or any other person.
Chinnaya v Ramayya
An old lady, by deed of gift, made over certain landed property to the defendant,
her daughter. By the terms of the deed, which was registered, it was stipulated
that an annuity of Rs.653 should be paid every year to the plaintiff, who was the
sister of the old woman. The defendant on the same day executed in plaintiff’s
favour an agreement promising to give effect to the stipulation. The annuity was
however not paid and the plaintiff sued to recover it.
It was held that the deed of gift and the defendant’s promise to pay the annuity
were executed simultaneously and, therefore, they should be regarded as one
transaction and there was sufficient consideration for that transaction.
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
The rule of “Privity of contract” meant a stranger to contract cannot sue has
taken firm roots in the English Common Law. But it has been generally criticised.
Lord Denning observed that where a contract is made for the benefit of a third
person who has a legitimate interest to enforce it, it can be enforced by the third
person in the name of the contracting party or jointly with him or, if he refuses to
join, by adding him as a defendant. The third person has a right arising by way of
contract and his interest will be protected by law.
Beswick v Beswick
Facts: B was a coal merchant. The defendant was assisting him in his business.
B entered into an agreement with the defendant by which the business was to be
transferred to the defendant. B was to be employed in it as a consultant for his
life and after his death, the defendant was to pay to his widow an annuity of £5
per week, which was to come out of the business. After B’s death, the defendant
paid B’s widow only one sum of £5. The widow brought an action to recover the
arrears of the annuity and also to get specific performance of the agreement.
Court Held: That she was entitled to enforce the agreement. Thus, the plaintiff
was allowed to enforce the agreement in her personal capacity, although she was
not a party to it and it was considered not necessary to infer a trust in favour of
the plaintiff.
64
Beneficiaries under trust or charge or other arrangements: A person in
whose favour a charge or other interest in some specific property has been
created may enforce it though he is not a party to the contract.
Marriage settlement, partition or other family arrangements: Where an
agreement is made in connection with marriage, partition or other family
arrangement and a provision is made for the benefit of a person, he may take
advantage of that agreement although he is no party to it.
Acknowledgement or estoppel: Where by the terms of a contract a party is
required to make a payment to a third person and he acknowledges it to that
third person, a binding obligation is incurred towards him. Acknowledgment
may be express or implied.
Covenants running with land: The rule of privity may also be modified by
the principles relating to transfer of immovable property.
McArdle, In re:
Court Held: That as the work had all been done and nothing remained to be done
by the promisee at all, the consideration was wholly past consideration and the
beneficiaries’ agreement for the repayment to her out of the estate was nudum
pactum, a promise with no consideration to support it. Thus, the action to enforce
the promise was rejected.
POSITION IN INDIA
In India, a past consideration may arise in two ways. It may consist of services
rendered at request but without any promise at the time or it may consist of
voluntary services.
65
CONSIDERATION MUST BE OF SOME VALUE
Consideration as defined in the Act, means some act, abstinence or promise on
the part of the promisee or any other which has been done at the desire of the
promisor. E.g.,
A promises to give his new Rolls-Royce car to B, provided B will fetch it from the
garage.
The act of fetching the car cannot by any stretch of imagination be called a
consideration for the promise. Even though it is the only act, the promisor
desired the promisee to do. Such an act no doubt satisfies the words of the
definition, but it does not catch its spirit. It is for this reason that English common
law insisted that “consideration must be of some value in the eyes of the law.” It
must be real and not illusory, whether adequate or not as long as the
consideration is not unreal, it is sufficient if it be of slight value only.
A agrees to sell a horse worth Rs.1000 for Rs.10. A denies that his consent to the
agreement was freely given. The inadequacy of the consideration is a fact which
the court should take into account in considering whether or not A’s consent was
freely given.
FORBEARANCE TO SUE
Forbearance to sue has always been regarded as valuable consideration. It
means that the plaintiff has a certain right of action against the defendant or any
other person and on a promise by the defendant, he refrains from bring the
action.
66
A. Pre-existing Contract with Promisor: Compliance with legal obligation
imposed by a contract with the promisor can be no consideration for a
promise.
Promise to pay less than amount due: A promise to pay less than what is
due under a contract cannot be regarded as a consideration.
67
GIFT ACTUALLY MADE [S. 25 (EXPLN. I)]
The provisions as to consideration do not affect, as between donor and donee,
the validity of any gift which has actually been made. A gift of movables which
has been completed by delivery and gift of immovable which has been perfected
by registration cannot be questioned as to their validity only on the ground of
lack of consideration. They may be questioned otherwise. Where a gift of
property was made by registered deed and attested by two witnesses, it was not
allowed to be questioned by the donor on the ground that she was the victim of
fraud which she was not able to establish.
UNIT – II
Capacity to Contract
Minor
AGE OF MAJORITY
NATURE OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT
EFFECTS OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT
1. No Estoppel against minor
2. No liability in contract or in tort arising out of contract
3. Doctrine of Restitution
1. Minor seeking relief, compellable to restore
2. Amended provisions in Specific Relief Act, 1963
Beneficial contracts
Contracts of marriage
Marriage of Muslim minor girl
Contracts of Apprenticeship
Trade contracts not included in beneficial contracts
Option to retire from beneficial contracts on majority
Ratification
Liability for necessaries [S. 68]
Meaning of “Necessaries”
Nature of Liability
English Law
Position in India
Free Consent
Definition of Free Consent [S. 14]
Coercion
DEFINITIONS [S. 15]
TECHNIQUES OF CAUSING COERCION
ACTS FORBIDDEN BY IPC
DETENTION OF PROPERTY
COMPARISON WITH ENGLISH LAW
68
Under Influence
DEFINITION [S. 16]
ABILITY TO DOMINATE WITH OF OTHER
BURDEN OF PROOF
PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
1. Unconscionable bargains, inequality of Bargaining Power or Economic Duress
Unconscionableness
Some instances of unconscionableness
Unconscionableness in money lending transactions
Position of dominance necessary for presumption to arise
Unconscionableness gifts
Relationship of blood, marriage or adoption not since qua non
Inequality of bargaining power
Influence distinguished from persuation
Economic duress by forcing renegotiation of terms
Exploitation of the needy
Technique of judicial intervention un unfair bargains
Rescuing employees and others from unreasonable terms
Natural justice
BURDEN OF PROOF
69
PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
1. Unconscionable bargains, inequality of Bargaining Power or Economic Duress
Unconscionableness
Some instances of unconscionableness
Unconscionableness in money lending transactions
Position of dominance necessary for presumption to arise
Unconscionableness gifts
Relationship of blood, marriage or adoption not since qua non
Inequality of bargaining power
Influence distinguished from persuation
Economic duress by forcing renegotiation of terms
Exploitation of the needy
Technique of judicial intervention un unfair bargains
Rescuing employees and others from unreasonable terms
Natural justice
1. Unwarranted Statements
2. Breach of duty
3. Inducing mistake about subject-matter
70
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
LIMITS OF RESCISSION [SS. 19 AND 19-A]
1. By affirmation
2. By lapse of time
3. Intervention of rights of third parties
MODE OF RESCISSION
RESTITUTION
DAMAGES FOR INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION
Mistake
Definition of Consent [S. 13]
Definition of Mistake
Supplementary provisions
71
Wagering Agreements
Its exceptions
Contingent Contracts
Restraint of Trade [S. 27]
Exceptions
Illegal and Void Agreements
CLASS NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – UNIT I (1ST SEM / 3 YEAR
LL.B)
UNIT I
Introduction to Indian Constitution
The framing of the Constitution was completed on November 26, 1949 when the
Constituent Assembly formally adopted the new Constitution. The Constitution
came into force with effect from January 26, 1950.
The Constitution contains the fundamental law of the land. It is the source of all
powers of, and limitations on, the three organs of State, viz. the executive,
legislature and judiciary. No action of the state would be valid unless it is
permissible under the Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative to have a clear
understanding of the nature and working of the Constitution.
72
responsible to the latter. In fact the Cabinet holds office so long as it enjoys
the confidence of the legislature. In this form of democracy, the Head of the
State is nominal. In India, the President is the Head of the State.
Constitutionally the President enjoys numerous powers but in practice the
Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, which really exercises
these powers. The President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the
Council of Ministers.
4. Fundamental Rights and Duties: Fundamental Rights are one of the
important features of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution provides for six
Fundamental Rights about which you will read in the following lesson.
Fundamental Rights are justiciable and are protected by the judiciary. In case
of violation of any of these rights one can move to the court of law for their
protection.Fundamental Duties were added to our Constitution by the 42nd
Amendment. It lays down a list of ten Fundamental Duties for all citizens of
India. While the rights are given as guarantees to the people, the duties are
obligations which every citizen is expected to perform.
5. Directive Principles of State Policy: The Directive Principles of State Policy
which have been adopted from the Irish Constitution, is another unique
feature of the Constitution of India. The Directive Principles were included in
our Constitution in order to provide social and economic justice to our people.
Directive Principles aim at establishing a welfare state in India where there will
be no concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
6. Partly rigid and Partly flexible: A constitution may be called rigid or flexible
on the basis of its amending procedure. The Constitution of India provides for
three categories of amendments. In the first category, amendment can be
done by the two houses of Parliament simple majority of the members present
and voting of before sending it for the President’s assent. In the second
category amendments require a special majority. Such an amendment can be
passed by each House of Parliament by a majority of the total members of that
House as well as by the 2/3rd majority of the members present and voting in
each house of Parliament and send to the President for his assent which
cannot be denied. In the third category besides the special majority mentioned
in the second category, the same has to be approved also by at least 50% of
the State legislatures.
7. Language Policy: India is a country where different languages are spoken
in various parts of the country. Hindi and English have been made official
languages of the central government. A state can adopt the language spoken
by its people in that state also as its official language.
8. Special Provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: The
Constitution provides for giving certain special concessions and privileges to
the members of these castes. Seats have been reserved for them in
Parliament, State legislature and local bodies, all government services and in
all professional colleges.
9. A Constitution Derived from Many Sources: The framers of our constitution
borrowed many things from the constitutions of various other countries and
included them in our constitution. That is why; some writers call Indian
Constitution a ‘bag of borrowings’.
10. Independent Judiciary: Indian judiciary is independent an impartial. The
Indian judiciary is free from the influence of the executive and the legislature.
The judges are appointed on the basis of their qualifications and cannot be
removed easily.
11. Single Citizenship: In India there is only single citizenship. It means that
every Indian is a citizen of India, irrespective of the place of his/her residence
or place of birth. He/she is not a citizen of the Constituent State like
Jharkhand, Uttaranchal or Chattisgarh to which he/she may belong to but
remains a citizen of India. All the citizens of India can secure employment
anywhere in the country and enjoy all the rights equally in all the parts of
India.
12. Universal Adult Franchise: Indian democracy functions on the basis of ‘one
person one vote’. Every citizen of India who is 18 years of age or above is
entitled to vote in the elections irrespective of caste, sex, race, religion or
73
status. The Indian Constitution establishes political equality in India through
the method of universal adult franchise.
13. Emergency Provisions: The Constitution makers also foresaw that there
could be situations when the government could not be run as in ordinary
times. To cope with such situations, the Constitution elaborates on
emergency provisions. There are three types of emergency; a) emergency
caused by war, external aggression or armed rebellion; b) emergency arising
out of the failure of constitutional machinery in states; and c) financial
emergency.
1. Supremacy of Constitution
2. Republican and Democratic form of Government
3. Secular Character of Constitution
4. Separation of Powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the
Judiciary
5. Federal Character of Constitution
Factors that affect the federal character of the Constitution of India are:
74
The debate whether India has a ‘Federal Constitution’ and ‘Federal Government’
has been grappling the Apex court in India because of the theoretical label given
to the Constitution of India, namely, federal, quasi-federal, unitary. The first
significant case where this issue was discussed at length by the apex Court was
State of West Bengal V. Union of India. The main issue involved in this case was
the exercise of sovereign powers by the Indian states. The legislative competence
of the Parliament to enact a law for compulsory acquisition by the Union of land
and other properties vested in or owned by the state and the sovereign authority
of states as distinct entities was also examined. The apex court held that the
Indian Constitution did not propound a principle of absolute federalism. Though
the authority was decentralized this was mainly due to the arduous task of
governing the large territory. The court outlined the characteristics, which
highlight the fact that the Indian Constitution is not a “traditional federal
Constitution”.
Thus, it can be said that Indian Constitution is primarily federal in nature even
though it has unique features that enable it to assume unitary features upon the
time of need.
Principles of Federalism
The Indian Constitution is basically federal in form and is marked by the
traditional characteristics of a federal system, namely, supremacy of the
Constitution, division of power between the Union and State Governments,
existence of an independent judiciary and a rigid procedure for the amendment of
the Constitution.
CASE LAWS
Preamble
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to
constitute India into a [SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens:
Article 4: Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the
First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential
matters
CASE LAWS
Part II – Citizenship
Article 5: Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution
Article 6: Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from
Pakistan
Citizenship by Birth
Article 7: Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan
Commonwealth Citizenship
Every person who is a citizen of a Commonwealth country specified in the First
Schedule shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth
citizen in India.
76
cannot be talked of as having or possessing citizenship. But it has been held that
shareholders can challenge the validity of a law on the grounds of violation of
their fundamental rights and the company may be joined in such proceeding with
proper pleading. The decisions relevant to the point are following:-
Case Laws:
1. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40
(48)
2. Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106: (1972) 2
SCC 788: 1973 (1) SCJ 177
3. D.C & G.M. v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 937
Domicile – Meaning
The country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in and has a
substantial connection with. The state in which a person has his/her permanent
residence or intends to make his/her residence, as compared to where the person
is living temporarily.
Kinds of Domicile
One Domicile
Under the Indian Constitution, there is only one domicile viz. the domicile of the
country and there is no separate domicile for a State.
Case Law:
Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420 : (1984) 3 SCC 654: 1984
Ed Case 237, para 8-9
Citizenship by Migration
Migration must be with intention to reside permanently in India. Such intention
may be formed even later.
Natural Rights
Natural Rights are those rights that are available to each and every being,
including human beings. Rights that are specific to Human beings are also called
as Human Rights. Natural rights deals with right to life, right to movement, etc.
77
Article 21 deals with right to protection of life and personal liberty.
At the same time, when a person lives alone in an island, he does not have right
but freedom. Only when a man lives as a group or in a community, rights evolve.
Because, when a man lives in a group, there is always conflict and absolute
freedom cannot be assured. Hence, the concept of right is correlated with duties.
The history of legally enforceable fundamental rights probably starts from Magna
Carta, which was a list of rights extracted from Kind John by the people of
England in 1214 AD. This was followed by the “Bill of Rights” in 1689 in which
Englishmen were given certain civil and political rights that could not be taken
away. Later on the French compiled the “Declaration of the rights of Man and of
the Citizen” after the French Revolution in 1789.
After this, nearly all democracies of the world have given a constitutional sanctity
to certain inalienable rights available to their citizens. (Source: Hanumant.com)
3. Quantification of Freedom
Every Indian citizen in free to practice a religion of his choice, but that is not so in
the gulf countries. Our right to speech and expression allows us to freely criticize
the govt. but this is not so in China. (Source: Hanumant.com)
78
Fundamental Rights in India
As regard India Simon Commission and Joint Parliamentary Committee had reject
the idea of enacting declaration of Fundamental right on the ground that the
abstract declaration is useless. Although the demand of the people was not met
by the British Parliament under the government of India Act 1935 yet the
enthusiasm of the people to have such right in the constitution was not impaired.
The recommendation of the Nehru Committee was included in the constitution in
16 May’1946 by the cabinet mission.
Art. 19(1)a – 19(1)g and Art. 19(2) places reasonable restriction on rights. Our
rights are not absolute rights.
Definition of State
Article 12 of the Constitution defines the State as follows:
“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of India.”
The definition of the term “the State” specifies the authorities and
instrumentalities functioning within or without the territory of India, which shall
be deemed to be “the State” for the purpose of part III of the Constitution. The
definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Therefore, authorities and
instrumentalities not specified in it may also fall within it if they otherwise satisfy
the characteristics of “the State” as defined in this article.
Local Authorities
A local authority having a legal grievance may be able to take out a writ. Thus, a
writ was issued on the petition of a local authority against a public utility concern,
for the latter’s failure to fulfil its statutory obligation to supply power to the local
authority, a consumer;
Case Law:
Corporation of City of Nagpur v. N.E.L & Power Co., AIR 1958 Bom 498
Other Authorities
Mr. Justice Bhagwati has given following test for determining whether an entity is
an instrumentality or agency of the State –
79
If the functions of the corporations of public importance and closely related
to governmental functions
Doctrine of Severability
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides for Doctrine of Severability which
states that All laws in force in India before the commencement of Constitution
shall be void in so far they are inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution.
A law becomes invalid only to the extent to which it is inconsistent with the
fundamental rights. So only that part of the law will be declared invalid which is
inconsistent, and the rest of the law will stand. However, on this point a
clarification has been made by the courts that invalid part of the law shall be
severed and declared invalid if really it is severable, i.e if after separating the
invalid part the valid part is capable of giving effect to the legislature’s
intent, then only it will survive, otherwise the court shall declare the entire law as
invalid.
Case Laws:
80
Doctrine of Eclipse
It states that an existing law which is inconsistent with a fundamental right
become inoperative from the date of the commencement of the constitution, it
cannot be accepted as dead altogether. The Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the
principle that a law which violates fundamental rights, is not nullity or void ab
initio but becomes, only unenforceable i.e. remains in a moribund condition. “It is
over-shadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant, but it is not
dead.” .
Case Laws:
It is the core article under Right to Equality. It deals with two kinds of rights. It
states that the State shall not deny to any person
(I) No man shall be punished either in body or goods (material) except for
the violation of law in force. Further, the violation of law shall be established
in an ordinary court of land in an ordinary legal manner.
(II) All individuals irrespective of their social or economic understanding
are subject to ordinary law of land. Further, all the individuals are subject to
the jurisdiction of the court. I.e. all individuals can be sued before the court. A
person can appear before the court in form of attorney or himself.
81
(III) The constitution is the result of ordinary Law of land.
However the third rule had been modified in its application under the Indian
constitution where the third law reads as the Constitution is Supreme law of Land
and all laws passed by the legislature shall conform to it to be legally valid.
In Keshavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala, 1973 case Supreme Court held that
the Rule of Law is a part of basic structure of the constitution and cannot be
destroyed.
(1) Article 361- The President or the Governor of State is not answerable to
a court of law with regard to exercise of its executive functions.
(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever can be instituted against the
President and Governor of State during his/her term of office. He should be
first remove impeached to continue the proceedings against him.
(3) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed can be instituted against
the President or the Governor of State in a court, except of the expiry under a
2 month notice served on the President and Governor.
(4) According to the International Laws- The visiting subject to the
jurisdiction of local court.
82
(i) Exempt certain classes of property from taxation such as charities,
libraries etc.
(ii) Impose different specific takes upon different trades and professions.
(iii)Tax income and property of individuals in different manner etc.
CASE LAWS
Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc on 28 August, 1981
A.H. under A.I. was retired from service in the following contingencies:
The court held that the last portion of regulation 46 (i) (c) struck down. The
provision ‘or on first pregnancy whichever occurs earlier’ is unconstitutional,
void and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and will, therefore, stand
deleted. It will, however, be open to the Corporation to make suitable
amendments.
Case Laws:
Case Laws:
Sexual Harassment
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan
Women Reservation
Rajesh Kumar Gupta v State of U.P.
83
P. Sagar v State of A.P.
No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.
No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or
trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from
any foreign State.
No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the
consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind
from or under any foreign State
84
but freedom of expression includes freedom of press. Reasonable restrictions
can be imposed in the interest of public order, security of State, decency or
morality.
Freedom to assemble peacefully without arms, on which the State can impose
reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and
integrity of India.
Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India which is also
subject to reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of the general public
or for the protection of the scheduled tribes because certain safeguards as are
envisaged here seem to be justified to protect indigenous and tribal peoples from
exploitation and coercion. Article 370 restricts citizens from other Indian states
and Kashmiri women who marry men from other states from purchasing land or
property in Jammu & Kashmir.
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality
or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order,
85
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order
or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any
law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights
conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or
for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing
in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the
law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence,
nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more
than once
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself
According to Article 20, no one can be awarded punishment which is more than
what the law of the land prescribes at that time. This legal axiom is based on the
principle that no criminal law can be made retrospective, that is, for an act to
become an offence, the essential condition is that it should have been an offence
legally at the time of committing it. Moreover, no person accused of any offence
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. “Compulsion” in this article
refers to what in law is called “Duress” (injury, beating or unlawful imprisonment
to make a person do something that he does not want to do). This article is
known as a safeguard against self incrimination. The other principle enshrined in
this article is known as the principle of double jeopardy, that is, no person can be
convicted twice for the same offence, which has been derived from Anglo Saxon
law. This principle was first established in the Magna Carta.
21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
Protection of life and personal liberty is also stated under right to life and
personal liberty. Article 21 declares that no citizen can be denied his life and
liberty except by law. This means that a person’s life and personal liberty can
86
only be disputed if that person has committed a crime. However, the right to life
does not include the right to die, and hence, suicide or an attempt thereof, is an
offence. (Attempted suicide being interpreted as a crime has seen many debates.
The Supreme Court of India gave a landmark ruling in 1994. The court repealed
section 309 of the Indian penal code, under which people attempting suicide
could face prosecution and prison terms of up to one year. In 1996 however
another Supreme Court ruling nullified the earlier one.) “Personal liberty”
includes all the freedoms which are not included in Article 19 (that is, the six
freedoms). The right to travel abroad is also covered under “personal liberty” in
Article 21.
In 2002, through the 86th Amendment Act, Article 21(A) was incorporated. It made
the right to primary education part of the right to freedom, stating that the State
would provide free and compulsory education to children from six to fourteen
years of age. Six years after an amendment was made in the Indian Constitution,
the union cabinet cleared the Right to Education Bill in 2008. It is now soon to be
tabled in Parliament for approval before it makes a fundamental right of every
child to get free and compulsory education.
Share this:
87
The Vice-President – Arts. 63 – 69
The Attorney-General for India – Art. 76
To Aid and Advise the President – the Collective Responsibility / the Council of
Ministers – Arts. 74 & 75
Conduct of Government Business – Arts 77 & 78
The Executive – the Governor – Arts. 153 – 167 & 213
The Council of Ministers to Aid and Advise the Governor – Arts. 163 & 164
The Advocate-General for the State – Arts. 165
Parliamentary Government – Art. 79 – 122
The General Provisions relating to Parliament – Arts. 79 – 122
Anti-defection Law / Disqualification of Members – Arts. 101 – 104 & 10th
Schedule
Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its members – Arts. 105 –
106 and of the State Legislative Assemblies and their members – Arts. 194 – 195
Legislative Procedure of the Parliament – Arts. 107 – 122
Bicameralism
LAW OF TORTS – UNIT I: REVISION NOTES FOR LL.B – FIRST YEAR
Introduction to the Law of Torts
The word tort is of French origin and is equivalent of the English word wrong. It is
derived from the Latin word tortum, which means twisted or crooked. It implies
conduct that is twisted or crooked. Tort is commonly used to mean a breach of
duty amounting to a civil wrong.
A tort arises due to a person’s duty to others which is created by one law or the
other. A person who commits a tort is known as a tortfeaser, or a wrongdoer.
Where they are more than one, they are called joint tortfeaser. Their wrongdoing
is called tortuous act and they are liable to be sued jointly and severally.
The principle aim of the Law of tort is compensation for victims or their
dependants. Grants of exemplary damages in certain cases will show that
deterrence of wrong doers is also another aim of the law of tort.
It has been argued that the development of law of tort in India need not be on the
same lines as in England.
88
which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial
thinking to be constructed by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for
the matter of that in any foreign country. We are certainly prepared to receive
light from whatever source it comes but we have to build our own jurisprudence.”
Scope of Tort
Tort & Contract
Constituents of Tort
The law of tort is an instrument to enforce reasonable behavior and respect the
rights and interests of one another. A protected interest gives rise to a legal right,
which in turn gives rise to a corresponding legal duty. An act, which infringes a
legal right, is wrongful act but not every wrongful act is a tort.
The wrongful act or omission may however not necessarily cause actual damage
to the plaintiff in order to be actionable. Certain civil wrongs are actionable even
though no damage may have been suffered by the plaintiff.
89
An act or omission that prejudicially affect one’s legal right. Such legally violative
wrongful act is called as actus reus. Thus, liability for a tort arises when the
wrongful act amounts to either an infringement of a legal private right or a
breach.
02. Damage
It means violating of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or damage to
the plaintiff. There are two kinds of torts: firstly those torts which are actionable
per se, i.e. actionable without the proof of any damage or loss. For instance,
trespass to land, is actionable even though no damage has been caused as a
result of the trespass.
Secondly, the torts which are actionable only on the proof of some damage
caused by an act. For successful actions the only thing which has to be proved is
that the plaintiff’s legal right has been violated, i.e. there is injuria.
Case Law: Refusal to register a voter was held as and injury per-se even when the
favorite candidate won the election – Ashby Vs. White (1703). This rule is based
on the old maxim of law, Ubi jus ibi remedium, which means that where there is a
right, there is a remedy.
It means “There may be an injury inflicted without any act of injustice.” There is
another term like it that is “damnum absque injuria“, which means damage or
harm without an injury in the legal sense. In other words a loss or injury to
someone which does not give that person a right to sue the person causing the
loss.
Case Laws:
In the case of Mayor & Bradford Corporation Vs. Pickles (1895), Pickles was
annoyed by the refusal of Bradford Corporation to purchase his land for their
water undertaking. Out of spite, he sank a shaft on his land, which had the effect
of discoloring and diminishing the water of the Corporation, which percolated
through his land. The House of Lords held that the action of Pickles was lawful
and no matter how ill his motive might be he had a right to act on his land in any
manner that so pleases him.
90
In the case of Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. Me-Gregory (1892). Certain ship owners
combined together. In order to drive a ship-owner out of trade by offering cheap
freight charges to customers who would deal with them. The plaintiff who was
driven out of business sued the ship-owner, for loss caused to him by their act.
The court held that a trader who is ruined by legitimate competition of his rivals
could not get damages in tort.
The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium
(there is no wrong without a remedy). Whenever the common law gives a right or
prohibits an injury, it also gives a remedy. It is an elementary maxim of equity
jurisprudence that there is no wrong without a remedy.
The maxim means only that legal wrong and legal remedy are correlative terms.
A tort is a civil injury, but all civil injuries are not torts. The wrongful act must
come under the category of wrongs for which the remedy is a civil action for
damages. The essential remedy for a tort is an action for damages, but there are
other remedies also e.g., injunction, restitution, etc.
Case Law:
In the case of Abbot v. Sullivan, the court held that there is a right to receive a
time-barred debt but there is no remedy to recover it.
Case Law:
Rougher, J., described in the case of John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd. v. London Fire
and Civil Defence Authority, “It is truism to say that we live in the age of
compensation. There seems to be a growing belief that every misforture must, in
pecuniary terms at any rate, be laid at someone else’s door, and after every
mishap, the cupped palms are outstretched for the solace of monetary
compensation.”
91
Failure to do something in doing an act is a bad way of performing the act. For
example, if a lawyer gives an opinion without taking notice of the change in law
brought about by a reported decision of the Supreme Court, he would not be
guilty of an omission but of performing the act of giving his opinion in a bad way.
An involuntary act does not give rise to any liability. For example, an involuntary
act of trespass is not a tort.
Mental elements
A voluntary act can be held in strict liability if there’s a presence of required
mental element i.e., malice, intention, negligence or motive in addition to the
other necessary ingredients of the torts are present.
Malice with an intention of wrongful act is called as Malice in Law. It is also called
as implied malice. In a legal sense, malice means a wrongful act, done
intentionally, without just cause or excuse. For example, if a person give a perfect
stranger a blow likely to produce death, the person do it out of malice because,
he do it intentionally and without just cause or excuse.
Defamation
Malicious prosecution
Willful and malicious damage to property
92
O INTENTION, NEGLIGENCE AND RECKLESSNESS
Intention is an internal fact, something which passes in the mind and direct
evidence of which is not available. There’s a popular saying that it is common
knowledge that the thought of man shall not be tried, for the devil himself
knoweth not the thought of man.
somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful
person would use under the circumstances; or
somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do
under the circumstances.
In the case of Dulieu Vs. White & Sons (1901), the plaintiff, a pregnant woman,
was sitting behind the counter of her husband?s bar when suddenly a horse was
driven into the bar. Fearing her personal safety, she suffered nervous shock and
gave birth to a premature baby. In the circumstances, the court held that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover in negligence.
Recklessness is also called as gross negligence. Gross negligence means
conduct or a failure to act that is so reckless that it demonstrates a substantial
lack of concern for whether an injury will result. It is sometimes necessary to
establish “gross negligence” as opposed to “ordinary negligence” in order to
overcome a legal impediment to a lawsuit. For example, a government employee
who is on the job may be immune from liability for ordinary negligence, but may
remain liable for gross negligence.
O MOTIVE
Motive is the ulterior object or purpose of doing an act. It differs from intention in
two ways. First, intention relates to the immediate objective of an act, whereas,
motive refers to the ulterior objective. Secondly, motive refers to some personal
benefit of satisfaction which the actor desires whereas intention need not be so.
For example, When A poisons B, the immediate objective is to kill B and so this is
A’s intention. The ulterior objective of A may be to secure B’s estate by
inheritance or under a will executed by him and this objective will be A’s motive.
Motive is generally irrelevant in tort.
In the case of Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles, A sank a well on his land and
thereby cut off underground water-supply from his neighbour B, and B’s well was
dried up. It was not unlawful for a land-owner to intercept on his own land
underground percolating water and prevent it from reaching the land of his
neighbour. The act did not become unlawful even though A’s motive in so doing
was to coerce B to buy his land at his own price. A, therefore, was not liable to B,
however improper and malicious his motive might be.
93
The term “non-feasance” applies to the omission to perform some act when there
is an obligation to perform it. Non-feasance of gratuious undertaking does not
impose liability, but misfeasance does.
O FAULT
If mental elements such as intention, negligence, malice or motive together with
an act or omission which is violative of a right recognized by law plays an
important role in creating liability. Such tortious liability has an element of fault to
support it. But there is a sphere of tortious liability which is known as absolute or
strict liability, where the element of fault is conspicuously absent.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the rule of strict liability is laid down
that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is
strictly and absolutely liable for the harm resulting from the operation of such
activity.
O JUDICIAL ACTS
The Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 – Under this Act, no Judge, Magistrate,
Justice of the Peace, Collector, or other person acting judicially, can be sued in
any Court, for any act done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty. Provided
that such acts were done in good faith.
O EXECUTIVE ACTS
The State and its officers are not liable when the wrongful act falls within the
purview of Act of State. The State is also vicariously liable for torts committed by
its officers in the course of employment except when they are committed while
discharging traditional sovereign functions.
94
cannot seek remedy where they are injured while in the game to which they
consented to be involved. Where a defendant pleads this defense, he is in effect
saying that the plaintiff consented to the act, which he is now complaining of. It
must be proved that the plaintiff was aware of the nature and extent of the risk
involved.
In the case of Khimji Vs Tanga Mombasa Transport Co. Ltd (1962), the plaintiffs
were the personal representatives of a deceased who met his death while
traveling as a passenger in the defendant’s bus. The bus reached a place where
road was flooded and it was risky to cross. The driver was reluctant to continue
the journey but some of the passengers, including the deceased, insisted that the
journey should be continued. The driver eventually yielded and continued with
some of the passengers, including the deceased. The bus got drowned together
with all the passengers aboard. The deceased’s dead body was found the
following day.
It was held that the plaintiff’s action against the defendants could not be
maintained because the deceased knew the risk involved and assumed it
voluntarily and so the defense of Volenti non fit injuria rightly applied.
O ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS
O AUTHORITIES OF NECESSITY
Lamb v. Burnett
O STATUTORY AUTHORITY
When the commission of what would otherwise be a tort, is authorized by a
statute the injured person is remediless, unless so far as the legislature has
thought it proper to provide compensation to him. The statutory authority
extends not merely to the act authorized by the statute but to all inevitable
consequences of that act. But the powers conferred by the legislature should be
exercised with judgment and caution so that no unnecessary damage is done, the
person must do so in good faith and must not exceed the powers granted by the
statute otherwise he will be liable.
In the Case of Vaugham Vs. Taffvale Railway Co. (1860), A railway company was
authorized by statute to run a railway, which traversed the plaintiff’s land. Sparks
from the engine set fire to the plaintiff’s woods. It was held that the railway
company was not liable. It had taken all known care to prevented emission of
sparks. The running of locomotives was statutorily authorized.
O INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
This means an accident, which cannot be prevented by the exercise of ordinary
care, caution or skill of an ordinary man. It occurs where there is no negligence
on the part of the defendant because the law of torts is based on the fault
principle; an injury arising out of an inevitable accident is not actionable in tort.
In the case of Stanley Vs. Powell (1891), the plaintiff was employed to carry
cartridge for a shooting party when they had gone pheasant-shooting. A member
95
of the party fired at a distance but the bullet, after hitting a tree, rebounded into
the plaintiff’s eye. The plaintiff sued. It was held that the defendant was not liable
in the light of the circumstance of inevitable accident.
O ACT OF GOD
This is also an inevitable accident caused by natural forces unconnected with
human beings e.g. earthquake, floods, thunderstorm, etc.
O NECESSITY
Where intentional damage is done so as to prevent greater damage, the defense
of necessity can be raised. Sometimes a person may find himself in a position
whereby he is forced to interfere with rights of another person so as to prevent
harm to himself or his property.
In the case of Esso Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Southport Corporation (1956), it was held
that the safety of human beings belongs to a different scale of value from the
safety of property. These two are beyond comparison and the necessity for
saving life has all times been considered, as a proper ground for inflicting such
damage as may be necessary upon another’s property.
O PRIVATE DEFENCE
Everyone has a right to defend his person, property and family from unlawful
harm. A person who is attacked does not owe his attacker a duty to escape.
Everyone whose life is threatened is entitled to defend himself and may use force
in doing so. The force used must be reasonable and proportionate to that of the
attacker. Normally, no verbal provocation can justify a blow
Morris v. Nugent
Bird v. Holbrook
National Coal Board v. England
Pitts v. Hunt
Holford v. Bailey
Vicarious Liability
Liability for wrongs committed by others. Generally, a person is liable for his own
wrong doings.
Liability by Ratification
96
MASTER-SERVANT: WHEN MASTER IS LIABLE
Williams v. Jones
Storey v. Ashton
Paulton v. London & S.W. Rly. Co.
General Engg. Services Ltd. v. Kingston Cheshire
MASTER-INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
PRINCIPAL-AGENT
COMPANY & DIRECTORS
PARTNERSHIP FIRMS & PARTNERS
GUARDIAN & WARD
Liability By Abetment
In actions of wrong, those who abet the tortious acts are equally liable with those
who commit the wrong. A person who procures the act of another is legally
responsible for its consequences
1. If he knowingly and for his own ends induces that other person to commit
an actionable wrong, or
2. when the act induced is within the right of the immediate actor and,
therefore, not wrongful so far as the actor is concerned, but is detrimental to a
third party and the inducer procures his object by the use of illegal means
directed against that third party
97