Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contract 1 New Syllabus 2020
Contract 1 New Syllabus 2020
Contract 1 New Syllabus 2020
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
Void Contracts: A ‘void contract’ is one where the whole transaction is regarded as a nullity. It means
that at no time has there been a contract between the parties. Any goods or money obtained under
the agreement must be returned. Where items have been resold to a third party, they may be
recovered by the original owner.
Voidable Contracts: A contract which is voidable operates in every respect as a valid contract unless
and until one of the parties takes steps to avoid it. Anything obtained under the contract must be
returned, in so far as this is possible. If goods have been resold before the contract was avoided, the
original owner will not be able to reclaim them.
Unenforceable Contracts: An unenforceable contract is a valid contract but it cannot be enforced in
the courts if one of the parties refused to carry out its terms. Items received under the contract
cannot generally be reclaimed.
Agreement, Contract and Proposal
Agreement definition [SECTION 2(e)]
Agreement is defined as “every promise and every set of promises forming the consideration for
each other”. And a promise is defined as an accepted 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.
An offer which is expressed by conduct is called an implied offer and the one which is expressed by
words, written or spoken, is called an express offer.
For example, a bid at an action is an implied offer to buy, stepping into an omnibus, and consuming
eatables at a self-service restaurant.
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.
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.
A company offered by advertisement to pay 100 pound to anyone “who contracts the increasing
epidemic influenza, colds or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball according
to printed directions.” It was added that 1000 pound is deposited with the Alliance Bank showing
our sincerity in the matter”. The plaintiff used the smoke balls according to the directions but she
nevertheless subsequently suffered from influenza. She was held entitled to recover the promised
reward.
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.
Catalogues and display of goods: A shopkeeper’s catalogue of prices is not an offer, only an invitation
to offer.
Announcement to hold auction: An auctioneer’s announcement that specified goods will be sold by
auction on a certain day is not an offer to hold the auction.
Definiteness of proposal: A classified advertisement to the effect: “cocks and hens 25s each” has
been held to be not an offer to sell.
Free distribution of articles: Not a contract of sale
Acceptance – Section 2(b)
Introduction of Acceptance – Sec. 2(b)
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.
Thus “acceptance” is the assent given to a proposal, and it has the effect of converting the proposal
into promise.
This is another way of saying that an agreement is an accepted proposal. Every agreement, in its
ultimate analysis, is the result of a proposal from one side and its acceptance by the other.
Communication to Offeror
Communication to Acceptor
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.
ACCEPTANCE BY CONDUCT
Mere mental assent to an offer does not conclude a contract either under the Indian Contract Act or
in English Law.
Facts – “The plaintiff offered by means of a letter to purchase his nephew’s horse. The letter said: “If
I hear no more about the horse, I consider the horse mine at pount 33.15s”. To this letter, no reply
was sent. But the nephew told the defendant, his auctioneer not to sell the horse as it was already
sold to his uncle. The auctioneer by mistake put up the horse for action and sold it. The plaintiff sued
the auctioneer on the ground that under the contract the horse had become his property and,
therefore, defendant’s unauthorized sale amounted to conversion. But the action failed.”
Facts – “The plaintiff was an applicant for the headmaster-ship of a school. The managers passed a
resolution appointing him, but the decision was not communicated to him. One of the members,
however, in his individual capacity informed him. The managers cancelled their resolution and the
plaintiff sued for breach of contract.”
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
Acceptance has to be made in the manner prescribed or indicated by the offeror. An acceptance
given in any other manner may not be effective. particularly where 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.
However, a reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but which contains additional or
different terms which do not materially alter the terms of 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.
An application for shares was made conditional on an undertaking by the bank that the applicant
would be appointed a permanent director of the local branch. The shares were allotted to him
without fulfilling the condition. The applicant accepted the position as a shareholder by accepting
dividends, filing a suit to recover it and by pledging his shares.
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.
An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete
as against the acceptor, 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.
It is necessary that the communication of revocation should be from the offeror or from his duly
authorised agent. But it has been held in the case of Dickinson v. Dodds, that it is not enough if the
offeree knows reliably that the offer has been withdrawn.
Where an offer of a general nature is published through newspapers, it can be withdrawn by the
same media and the revocation will be effective even if a particular person, subsequent to the
withdrawl, happened to perform its terms in ignorance of the withdrawal.
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.
In the case of Dickinson v Dodds, it was held that an offer cannot be accepted after the death of the
offeror.
SECTION 6: Revocation how made
A proposal is revoked —
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.
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.
Abdul Aziz Vs. Masum Ali
A promise to subscribe Rs.500 for re-building a mosque – not fulfilled – secretary of mosque
committee filed a suit for enforcement of promise – Held, the promise not enforceable as no
consideration in the sense of benefit for the promisor – the secretary of the committee suffered no
detriment as nothing has been done to carry out the repairs – no contract.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel was first developed in Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co
[1877] but was lost for some time until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the controversial case
of Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947].
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)
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.
Thus to constitute a good consideration, act or abstinence must be at the desire of the promisor.
It was thought advisable to erect a town hall at Howrah provided sufficient subscription could be got
together for the purpose. To this end the Commissioners of Howrah municipality set out to work to
obtain necessary funds by public subscription. The defendant was a subscriber to this fund for
Rs.100 having signed his name in the subscription book for the amount. On the faith of the promised
subscriptions, the plaintiff entered into a contract with a contractor for the purpose of building the
hall. But the defendant failed to pay the amount and contended that there was no consideration for
this promise.
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 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.”
Abdul Aziz v Masum Ali
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.
Judgement: The father’s promise was a unilateral contract, a promise of the house in return for their
act of paying the installments. It could not be revoked by him once the couple entered on
performance of the act, but it would cease to bind him if they left it incomplete and unperformed.
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.
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.
Facts: The plaintiff was to be married to the daughter of one G and in consideration of this intended
marriage G and the plaintiff’s father entered into a written agreement by which it was agreed that
each would pay the plaintiff a sum of the money. G failed to do so and the plaintiff sued his
executors.
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.
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.
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.
McArdle, In re:
Facts: A effected certain improvements to property. The ultimate beneficiaries of the property
signed a document declaring that: “In consideration of your carrying out certain alterations and
improvements, we the beneficiaries shall repay to you the sum of £488 in settlement of the amount
spent on such improvements.
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.
Past act at request good consideration: Exception to the past consideration in the English law is that
a past act done at request will be good consideration for a subsequent promise. If the voluntary
courtesy were moved by a request of the party that gives the promise, it will bind, for the promise.
Other exceptions are: A promise to pay a time-barred debt and a negotiable instrument issued for a
past consideration are both valid.
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.
Past voluntary service: A voluntary service means a service rendered without any request or promise
and there is a subsequent promise to pay for the same. E.g., “If A saves B from drowning and B later
promises A a reward.” In India, the promise would be enforceable by virtue of Section 25(2) which
provides that a promise to compensate wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done
something for the promisor is enforceable.
Past service at request: b
PAST AND EXECUTED CONSIDERATION
EXECUTORY CONSIDERATION
“Such Act, Abstinence or Promise is called Consideration”
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.
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.
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.
Unit 2
Capacity to Contract
Minor
AGE OF MAJORITY
NATURE OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT
EFFECTS OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT
No Estoppel against minor
No liability in contract or in tort arising out of contract
Doctrine of Restitution
Minor seeking relief, compellable to restore
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
Persons of Unsound Mind
English Law
Position in India
Free Consent
Definition of Free Consent [S. 14]
Vitiating factors and their effect
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
Consent under pressure
Subtle species of fraud
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
2. Contracts with Pardanashin Woman
RESCISSION [S. 19-A]
Misrepresentation
DEFINITION
Unwarranted Statements
Breach of duty
Inducing mistake about subject-matter
SUPPRESSING OF VITAL FACTS
OF MATERIAL FACTS
EXPRESSION OF OPINION
REPRESENTATION OF STATE OF MIND
CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
INDUCEMENT
MEANS OF DISCOVERING TRUTH
Fraud
DEFINITION
ASSERTION OF FACTS WITHOUT BELIEF IN TRUTH
ACTIVE CONCEALMENT
MERE SILENCE IS NO FRAUD
WHEN SILENCE IS FRAUD
Duty to speak (Contracts uberrima fides)
Where silence is deceptive
Change of circumstances
Half-truths
PROMISE MADE WITHOUT INTENTION OF PERFORMING
ANY OTHER ACT FITTED TO DECEIVE
ANY ACT OR OMISSION SPECIALLY DECLARED TO BE FRAUDULENT
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
LIMITS OF RESCISSION [SS. 19 AND 19-A]
By affirmation
By lapse of time
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
WHAT FACTS ARE ESSENTIAL
Mistake as to Identity
ASSUMPTION OF FALSE IDENTITY
MISTAKE CAUSED BY TAKEOVER OF BUSINESS
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
Mistake as to quality of subject-matter as distinguished from substance
MISAPPREHENSION AS TO PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE RIGHTS
Mistake as to Nature of Promise
WHERE THE CONTRACT FAILS TO EXPRESS PARTIES’ INTENTION
DOCUMENTS MISTAKENLY SIGNED OR NON EST FACTUM
Limitations
1. MISTAKE OF BOTH PARTIES
2. ERRONEOUS OPINION ABOUT VALUE OF SUBJECT-MATTER
3. MISTAKE OF FACT AND NOT OF LAW
Legality of Object
Unlawful agreements
Void Agreements
Agreements against Public Policy
Wagering Agreements
Its exceptions
Contingent Contracts
Restraint of Trade [S. 27]
Exceptions
Illegal and Void Agreements
UNIT 3
Discharge of Contracts and its various Modes by performance
Time and place of performance
Performance of reciprocal promises
Appropriation of Payments
Discharge by Agreement
By operation of Law
By frustration (Impossibility of Performance)
By Breach (Anticipatory and Actual)
Unit 4
Remedies for Breach of Contracts
Damages
Remoteness of damages
Ascertainment of damages
Injunction
When granted and when refused
Restitution
Specific performance when granted
Quasi Contracts
UNIT 5
Nature of Specific Relief
Recovery of Possession of movable and immovable Property
Specific performance when granted and not granted
Who may obtain and against whom
Discretionary remedy
Power of Court to grant relief
Rectification of instruments
Cancellation
Declaratory decrees
Preventive relief
Temporary injunctions
Perpetual and Mandatory Injunctions
Government as a contracting party: Constitutional provisions
Government powers to contract
Procedural requirements
Kinds of Government Contracts, their usual clauses, performance of such contract, settlement of
disputes and remedies.