Scribd
Upload
12 views

Assignment

The document discusses the meaning of consensus ad idem in contract law, which refers to a meeting of the minds between both parties to an agreement. It also discusses the principles of res judicata and jurisdiction of courts, and notes key cases that discuss whether court decisions can be relitigated or if the preamble is legally enforceable as part of the constitution.

Uploaded by

hgcpqbyqkx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views

Assignment

The document discusses the meaning of consensus ad idem in contract law, which refers to a meeting of the minds between both parties to an agreement. It also discusses the principles of res judicata and jurisdiction of courts, and notes key cases that discuss whether court decisions can be relitigated or if the preamble is legally enforceable as part of the constitution.

Uploaded by

hgcpqbyqkx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Q.

1) Consensus ad idem means: (Indian Contract Act)


a) common intention
b) meeting of minds
c) theme of contract
d) none of the above

CONSENSUS AD IDEM MEANS:


Definition:
Consensus ad idem refers to the principle of contract
law where both parties involved in a contract must
have a mutual understanding or agreement on the
same thing in the same sense.
Explanation:
o Common Intention: It signifies that both parties
share a similar intention or purpose regarding the
contract.
o Meeting of Minds: It emphasises the importance
of both parties reaching an agreement or
consensus on all essential terms of the contract.
o Theme of Contract: It relates to the central idea
or concept agreed upon by both
parties, ensuring clarity and
understanding.
o Consensus ad idem is fundamental in contract law,
ensuring parties share a mutual understanding to
prevent misunderstandings and disputes.
o It forms the cornerstone of contract formation,
emphasizing the importance of clarity and agreement
on essential terms.

Case Law:
Balfour v. Balfour (1919):
HELD:
The court first recognized that certain forms of agreements
do not reach the status of a contract. An agreement
between a husband and wife is oftentimes such a form of
agreement. In such agreements, one party is given a certain
sum of money on a daily, weekly, monthly, etc.. basis. This
agreement is sometimes termed an allowance. However,
these agreements are not contracts because the “parties did
not intend that they should be attended by legal
consequences.” One reason the court is hesitant to treat
these agreements as contracts is that there would not be
enough courts to handle the volume of cases. Thus, here,
the husband’s promise did not rise to the level of a contract.
The court makes an interesting argument in not enforcing
these types of promises. The court argues that if these
promises are treated as contracts the flood gates will open.
Remember "meeting of minds" to recall the meaning
of consensus ad idem in contract law.

The term "consensus ad idem" is


derived from Latin, translating to
"meeting of the minds," reflecting its
significance in contract law.
Q.2) In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the
court which may decide that suit must have been?

I. A civil court of competent jurisdiction

II. A court of exclusive jurisdiction

III. A court of concurrent jurisdiction ‘competent to try the subsequent suit’

IV. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent
suit

a) Either I or III

b) Either II or III

c) Either III or IV

d) All of these

RES JUDICATA AND JURISDICTION


o Res Judicata: Refers to the principle that a matter
adjudicated by a competent court and decided by
a final judgment shall not be litigated again by the
same parties.
o Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):
Enshrines the principle of res judicata in India.
o Res Judicata: Latin term meaning "a matter
adjudged," referring to the legal doctrine that a
final judgment on the merits by a competent court
is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and
prevents relitigation of the same issues in
subsequent suits.
o Jurisdiction: Refers to the authority of a court to
hear and decide a case.
o Understanding the jurisdiction of the court is
essential to determine the applicability of res
judicata.
o Res judicata ensures the finality of judgments and
prevents re-litigation of the same issues,
promoting judicial efficiency.

Remember the acronym "CERE" for the


options: Civil, Exclusive, Concurrent, and
Limited, representing different types of
court jurisdiction.

Res judicata intersects with jurisdictional principles,


emphasizing the importance of the court's authority in
determining the finality of decisions.
CASE LAW:
Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi:
The landmark case where the Supreme Court clarified
the scope and applicability of res judicata under
Section 11 of the CPC, emphasizing the importance of
consistency in judicial decisions.
Kuldeep Singh v. Superintendent of Police:
The Supreme Court held that for res judicata to apply,
the court deciding the former suit must have been
competent to try the subsequent suit, highlighting the
importance of jurisdiction.
Q.3) The Supreme Court held in which of the following cases the preamble is not
part of the Constitution of India

a) Berubari case

b) A. K. Gopalan case

c) Balaji Case

d) Minerva Mill’s case

The Supreme Court, in the case of Berubari Union


and Exchange of Enclaves (1960), clarified that the
Preamble is not a part of the Constitution of India.
Berubari Case (1960):
• Addressed a territorial dispute between India and
Pakistan, involving the ceding of territory in
exchange for settlement.
• Supreme Court examined the constitutional
validity of the Nehru-Noon Agreement, focusing
on the status of the Preamble.
The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves Case
(1960)
The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves Case
(1960) marked a pivotal moment where the Supreme
Court affirmed the non-constitutional status of the
Preamble in the Indian Constitution. This ruling
clarified that while the Preamble reflects
constitutional ideals, it does not hold enforceable legal
authority.

• The Berubari case


remains pivotal in
understanding the
interpretation of the
Preamble in Indian
constitutional law.

• The ruling in Berubari case guides the


understanding of the Preamble's role in shaping
constitutional interpretation and governance.

• The Berubari case clarified the legal standing of


the Preamble, underscoring its significance as a
guiding principle rather than a legally enforceable
provision within the Indian Constitution.

You might also like