Question 1

Issues:

The issue here is whether there is a valid contract between the two parties. Was there a valid
acceptance from Warney or not? (1 mark for identifying the issue)

Application:

Mcwahwah Ltd sells whitening creams and introduces a cream with the slogan “USE MCGRATH CREAM-
YOU SHALL BE WHITE AS DEATH IN THE FIRST MONTH OF REGULAR USE- IF WE FAIL THEN WE SHALL
GET YOU A NEW FERRARI”. Warney uses the cream for one month, gets a crazy rash and dies which is
later linked to the use of the cream. The case is about the unilateral contract, which is acceptance
through action. Here Mcwahwah LTD gave an offer to the whole world, only those accepted the offer
who applied the cream. (4 marks for explaining how this is a unilateral contract). This case can be linked
with the Carllil vs Carbolic smoke ball (2marks for comparing the case with carllil vs carbolic smoke
ball). So, after Warney applied the cream, he was in contract with Mcwahwah LTD.

Conclusion:

Heirs of Warney should file a case against because there was a valid contract between Warney and
Mcwahwah, and they should get a new Ferrari. (1mark for the conclusion)

Question 2

Issue:

The issue here is whether the workers should be given Rs. 500 per day extra or not. Whether labors
were providing practical benefit or not. (2 marks for identifying issues).

Application:

Whenwebrete enters a contract for supply and installation of Pavers with Wakeel Ahmed for doing work
at his home and subcontracts the installation work to Jeeva Khan for Rs. 100, 000/-.Work starts on 8-9-
2019 and Whenwecrete has promised Wakeel Ahmed that work will end by 20-9-2019 else they will pay
Wakeel Khan Rs. 10,000/- per day. And then the labors started asking extra wages and juices during the
work which increased the cost greatly. Jeeva khan then promised the labors that he will pay 500 per day
extra if the work is finished on time. This case is a good example of practical benefit. The labors saved
Jeeva khan from the fine of Rs. 10,000 per day and the hassle of finding a new contractor, hence
providing the practical benefit (5 marks for explaining how this case is an example of practical benefit).
This case can be linked with Williams V. Roffey (3marks for comparing this case with Williams vs
Roffey).

Conclusion:

Jeeva khan is liable to pay the labors extra 500 per day as they have provided him the practical benefit.
(2marks for the conclusion)

Question 3

Issue:
The issue here is whether both the parties had a valid contract or not? Whether both the parties had the
intention to create legal relations or not? (2 marks for identifying the issue)

Application:

Mrs. Rakhshada Yo promises her daughter FoFeHin to pay her tuition fee to do her master’s from a well
reputed business school based in Karachi. For her upkeep Mrs. Yo also allows FoFeHin her house in
Machar Colony and lets her rent the two top floors so that her daily expenses can be met. FoFeHin
agrees, comes to Karachi, and takes admission. She falls in love with Mr. TreeplantShee and loses focus
failing several modules. Ms. Rakhshada is furious and is seeking possession of her house in machar
colony. In domestic situations, there is no intention to create legal relations and thus despite their being
offer, acceptance and consideration also, the contract is vitiated for a lack of intention to create legal
relations. So, there is no contract as the there was no intention to create legal relations. (5 marks for
explaining how parties had no intention to create legal relations).

Conclusion:

Ms. Rakhshada can take possession of the house in Machar Colony and Forfehin cannot take aaction
against her in the court as in the case of domestic situations there is no intention to create legal
relations. (1 mark for the conclusion)

Question 4

Issue:

The issue here is whether there was active misrepresentation from lawyer’s side or not? (0.5mark for
identifying the issue)

Application:

This is a case of misrepresentation in which an assertion or fact is dishonest to the party persuading
them to sign a contract. Once a statement is misrepresented, it tends to appear that way to the
representator, making it incorrect, and if he fails to correct it, it is a misrepresentation. Azzam would not
have signed the contract if he had known about the risk. This case is like with vs. O' Flanagon [1936], in
which the defendant had the right to rescind the contract, so Azzam had the option of leaving the
contract and getting his money back. The lawyer not only misrepresented the situation by notifying the
client of the change of circumstances, but he also cashed the check. (3marks for the explanation of how
this case is an example of active misrepresentation )

Conclusion:

The contract should be rescinded as there was active misrepresentation from lawyer’s side. (0.5 marks
for conclusion)