Cases

OFFER
Harvey v. facey – bumper hall pen case
diffrence between invitation to offer and offer.
Harris v. nickerson – auction sale (invitation to offer)
Articles advertised in auction is invitation to offer
Lalman Shukla v. gauri datt- (nephew missing case)
There must be knowledge of offer and acceptance.
Harbajan lal v. harcharan lal- sec 8 - general offer can be accepted by
conduct of any person who fulfils the condition
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION
Merrit v. merit- husband agreed to transfer home to wife on
separation
Jones v. padvatton- informal agreement between mother and
daughter
Mc gregor v. mc gregor- agreement between husband and wife
Balfour V. Balfour- Husband wife (maintainance)
Bawari Lal V. Sukhdarshan Dayal- a simple notification made under
the housing project reserving the property for a Dharamshala did not
bind the buyer to build a Dharamshala.
ACCEPTANCE
Boulten v. jones- offer can be accepted only by person to whom it is
made.
Carlill v. carbolic smoke ball co.- acceptance by conduct to a general
offer.
{Jordan v. Norton- double price
U.P state electricity board v. goel electrics }
Felthouse v. bindley- {sec 2(a)} silence is not acceptance
Bhagwan Das Kedia V. Girdhari lal and Co.- in case of acceptance by
phone, the contract is deemed to be complete when the offeror
hears the acceptance at this end rather than when the acceptor
speaks the words of acceptance.
REVOCATION OF AN OFFER
Powell v. lee- acceptance must be communicated by an offeree
acting in his authorized capacity. {sec 2(a) and sec 2(b)}
Dickinson v. dodds- communication of withdrawal of an offer by any
other party is valid and would be treated as if it came from person
themselves.
COUNTER OFFER
Hyde v. wrench- counter offer destroys the original offer
Mc phearson v. apanna- (counter offer cannot be accepted) offer
should be as per sec 2(a)
CROSS OFFER
Tim v. hoffman- cross offer cannot be accepted
CONSIDERATION
Durga prasad v. baldeo- consideration at the desire of promisor
Kedarnath v. gorie mohammad- future consideration
Doraswammi iyer v. Arunachala ayyer- promisee must have acted on
something amounting more than a bare promise.
Abdul aziz v. masum ali- a mere promise to subscribe to a charitable
institution cannot be sued upon if nothing has been done in
furtherance of the fund raised.
Kastoori devi v. chiranji lal- withdrawl of a pending suit by a wife
against her husband is a good consideration for his promise to pay
her maintenance. (FORBEARANCE TO SUE)
PRIVITY TO CONTRACT ( part of consideration only)
Dutton v. poole- beneficiary to contract as per Indian contract act
Twiddle v. Atkinson- decided as per common law – beneficiary to
contract cannot sue
Rose v. joseph- a girl for whose benefit the agreement was formed
for marriage has a right to sue the defendant for the damages for the
breach of promise of marriage even if she is not a party to contract.
Dunlop v. selfridge- agreement for resale price maintenance was not
enforceable due to the matter of privity of contract.
Sundaraja Ayyangar V. Lakshmi Ammal- there was an agreement
among the brothers of a Hindu joint family to pay for the expenses to
be incurred for the marriage of their sister. Despite being a third
party to the agreement, the sister had the right to enforce the
provision that was made for her.
Collins V. Godefroy- Doing of something which a person is already
legally bound to perform is no consideration
Ramachandra V. kalu raju- promise to pay a special reward to a
pleader if the suit decided in the promisor’s favor does not constitute
consideration.
Stilk V. Myrick- (Voyage of a ship CASE) They were doing no more
than their duty in working the ship home
Ward V. Byham- the mother of an illegitimate child is bound to maintain it,
whereas the father is under no obligation to pay her maintenance.

Khwaja Muhammad Khan V. Hussain Begum- agreement between

both fathers of daughter to pay her betel-leaf expenses after
marriage. Held that wife, although not a party, was entitled to
enforce her claim. (BENEFICIARY TO CONTRACT)
Pinnel’s case- A promise to pay less than what is due under a
contract is not consideration.
CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
(Minor)
Mohoribibi V. Dharmodas Ghose- Agreement by a minor is absolutely
void and defendant cannot recover the mortgage money.
Sadiq Ali Khan V. Jai Kishore- No estoppel against a minor even if he
has acted fraudulently.
Leslie Ltd V. Sheill- Doctrine of restitution

Khan Dul V. Lakha singh- when the minor deliberately misrepresents

himself as “adult” and enters a contract, the fair and reasonable action
would be to exercise its equitable jurisdiction and apply the principle of
restitution.

Padma vithoba V. Mohammad Multani- A minor is incapable of giving

consent,, and there being no consent, there could be no liability in
contract.

(claim of necessaries supplied)

Chappel V. Cooper- a widow was held to be liable for the funeral

expenses of her husband. It was classed as a contract for necessaries.

Peter’s V. Fleming- A watch for an undergraduate student is a

necessity.

Nash V. Inman- A minor was supplied with Fancy Waist Coats who
already has ample clothes. Held, that the plaintiff cannot recover
price of dresses.

(Unsoundness of mind)
Abdur Rauf V. Ayoman Bibi- A person is in a position to dominate the
will of another where mental capacity is affected by reason of age,
illness or bodily or mental distress.

Mathews V baxter- a party who enters into a contract when in state

of intoxication may, when sober, ratify it, and in such case the
contract will be binding.

Rama Raju V. Official Receivers- insolvent person

FREE CONSENT

(Coercion)

Ranganayakamma V. Alwar Seti- widow was coerced to adopt a boy

to perform the funeral of his husband.

(Undue influence)

Wajid Khan V. Raja Ewaz Ali Khan- unconscionable bargain

Mannu Singh V. Umadat Pandey- a guru influenced his disciple to

take his property in gift by promising to secure benefits to him in the
next world. The court set the gift aside as it was not formed with free
consent.

(Fraud)

Derry V. Peek- company mentioned they have authority to use steam

engines which was actually not granted. (they honestly believed they
will get permission) Held that they had no intention to deceive.

(Misrepresentation)

Oriental Banking Co. V. John fleming- deed containing release in

favor of the defendant was signed on the impression that it
contained nothing but formal matters.
Bisset V Wilkinson- (Sheep Case) Whether a statement is one of fact
or opinion for the purposes of rescinding a contract

(Mistake- as to indentity)

Ingram V. Little- a fraudster pretended to be a businessman (which

he was not) and plaintiff sold the car to him only on this basis. Using
someone’s identity prevented the contract from being formed.

Philips V. Brooks- While the fraudster purchased the ring, there was
no mistake as to identity due to the fact this contract was made to
face to face and the jeweler already knew person’s name.

Foster V. Mackinnon- a person was induced to sign the back of the

paper which was not shown to him and in fact, it was a bill of
exchange.