1.Distinguishing Between Agreement and Contract.

An agreement, in legal terms, is a mutual understanding between two or more parties,

encompassing an offer and acceptance.
On the other hand, a contract is a legally binding agreement that meets specific legal criteria. It
includes elements such as offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, legality of
purpose, possibility of performance, and consideration.

While an agreement is a broader concept, a contract holds the force of law, and its breach can
lead to legal remedies.

2. Voidable Contracts
Voidable contracts are those that suffer from a defect allowing one party to choose between
enforcing or voiding the contract. This defect can arise from factors like undue influence,
coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or the incapacity of a party. The party with the option to void
can either affirm the contract or rescind it. Courts may provide remedies to the aggrieved party,
emphasizing the protection of parties who may have been unfairly influenced or deceived.

3. Acceptance
Acceptance, a pivotal element in contract formation, is the unambiguous and final expression
of agreement to the terms of an offer. It must be communicated to the offeror, creating a binding
contract. The communication can be explicit, through words or actions, and must align precisely
with the terms of the offer. Silence generally does not constitute acceptance unless specified by
the offeror or implied by custom. The postal rule, established in Adams v Lindsell, dictates that
acceptance is effective upon posting, even if the offeror is unaware.

4. Anticipatory Breach
Anticipatory breach occurs when one party, before the agreed-upon performance date,
expresses an intention not to fulfill their contractual obligations. This may be conveyed through
words, actions, or clear conduct. The innocent party can treat the anticipatory breach as an
immediate breach, allowing them to seek remedies for breach of contract, such as damages or
specific performance. The anticipatory breach doctrine provides a mechanism for parties to
address potential breaches before they actually occur.

5. General Offer
A general offer is a widespread invitation to the public or a specific group, and acceptance
typically occurs by fulfilling the conditions stated in the offer. Unlike specific offers, general offers
are open to an indefinite number of people. The classic example is the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Co case, where an advertisement promising a reward for using a particular product
constituted a general offer. Fulfilling the conditions outlined in the advertisement resulted in a
binding contract and the enforceability of the reward.

6. Novation of Contract
 Novation involves the substitution of one party to a contract with the consent of all involved
parties. It extinguishes the original contract and creates a new one. Novation requires a tripartite
agreement where the original contracting parties and the new party all agree to the substitution.
This process is different from assignment, where the original party remains liable unless
released by agreement. Novation ensures that all parties are on board with the change,
maintaining the integrity of the contractual relationship.

7. Doctrine of Quantum Meruit (7 Marks):

The doctrine of quantum meruit allows a party to recover a reasonable value for services
rendered when there is no explicit contract, or the contract is unenforceable. This equitable
remedy prevents unjust enrichment, ensuring that a person who benefits from another's
services compensates the service provider fairly. Quantum meruit focuses on the value of the
work done and is often invoked when parties intended to create a contract, but some essential
terms are missing or unenforceable.

8. Implied Offer with Case Law

An implied offer arises from the parties' conduct or circumstances, rather than explicit verbal
or written communication. In the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case, the company's promise
to pay a reward for using their product was implied through the act of performance. The court
held that the performance constituted acceptance of the offer, emphasizing the significance of
implied offers and acceptance in contract law.

9. Void Agreement
A void agreement is one that lacks legal enforceability from its inception. It is considered
invalid and cannot be enforced by the courts. Such agreements are typically deemed void for
reasons like illegality, impossibility, or being against public policy. Void agreements do not create
legal rights or obligations, and any transactions arising from them are considered null and void.

10. Offer
An offer is a proposal made with the intention to create a legal relationship, indicating the
terms under which the offeror is willing to be bound. It must be communicated to the offeree and
contain clear, definite, and complete terms. An offer can be express or implied, and once
accepted, it forms the basis of a legally binding contract. Certain conditions, like invitation to
treat, are not considered offers, as seen in cases like Fisher v Bell.

11. Doctrine of Frustration

The doctrine of frustration applies when unforeseen events occur, rendering the performance
of a contract impossible or radically changing the nature of the contractual obligations.
Frustration is not a fault of either party but results from external, unforeseeable circumstances.
The affected party may be excused from further performance, and the contract is considered
discharged. Frustration is a recognized defense to non-performance, and its application
depends on the specific facts of each case.
12. Section 3 and 29 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.
Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines what constitutes a valid contract. It
emphasizes essential elements such as offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations,
lawful consideration, lawful object, capacity, and free consent.

Section 29 deals with agreements voidable at the option of one or more parties. It addresses
situations where a contract, though initially valid, becomes voidable due to factors like coercion,
undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation. The aggrieved party has the option to affirm or
void the contract.

13. Define Fraud

Fraud is a deliberate and intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, causing
financial or legal detriment to another party. It involves false representation, concealment of
material facts, or misleading statements made with the intent to induce another party to act to
their disadvantage. Fraud vitiates consent, rendering the affected contract voidable at the option
of the defrauded party.

14. Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation involves a false statement made with the intention to deceive, leading
another party to enter into a contract based on the misleading information. It can be innocent,
negligent, or fraudulent. Innocent misrepresentation occurs without intent, negligent
misrepresentation results from careless or reckless statements, and fraudulent
misrepresentation involves deliberate deception. Misrepresentation can render a contract
voidable, and the innocent party may seek rescission or damages.

15. How Does the Communication of Any Project Complete?

The communication of acceptance in a contract is considered complete when it is put in a
course of transmission. This means that it is dispatched by the offeree in a manner that is
reasonably certain to come to the attention of the offeror. In general, the postal rule dictates that
acceptance is effective upon posting, even if the offeror is unaware of it. However, this rule may
not apply if the offeror specifies a different mode of acceptance or if instantaneous
communication is required.

16. Display of Goods with Prices in a Self-Service Store Is Not a Proposal. Elaborate
The display of goods with prices in a self-service store is typically considered an invitation to
treat rather than a proposal. In such a setting, the customer makes the offer by selecting items
and bringing them to the cashier for payment. The store owner, in this context, has not made a
specific offer but has merely provided an invitation for customers to make offers. This distinction
is crucial in understanding when a contract is formed in a retail setting, and it aligns with the
principle established in the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash
Chemists.

17. Under Influence

 Under influence refers to situations where one party is unduly pressured or influenced by
another, affecting their ability to make independent decisions. This influence may be moral,
social, domestic, or even economic. When such influence is exerted to the extent that it
overcomes the influenced party's free will, it may render a contract voidable at the option of the
influenced party. Courts examine the nature and degree of influence to determine its impact on
the voluntariness of contractual consent.

18. Who Is Capable to Make a Contract?

Individuals of sound mind, free from legal disabilities, and with the legal capacity to
understand the terms can make a contract. Minors, persons of unsound mind, those under the
influence of intoxicants, and individuals under certain legal restrictions may lack the capacity to
contract. Corporations and other legal entities, if duly authorized, also have the capacity to enter
into contracts.

19. Coercion
Coercion involves the use of force or threats to compel someone to enter into a contract
against their will. It undermines the voluntary nature of contractual consent. Coerced
agreements are voidable at the option of the coerced party. Coercion may take various forms,
including physical harm, threats of harm, economic duress, or the abuse of authority. Courts
examine the circumstances surrounding the coercion to determine its impact on the fairness of
the contract.

20. Agreement in Restraint of Trade

An agreement in restraint of trade restricts a person's freedom to carry on trade or business.
Such agreements are generally void unless they satisfy certain conditions, such as being
reasonable in scope and protecting legitimate business interests. The courts carefully scrutinize
these agreements to ensure they strike a balance between protecting the parties involved and
not unduly restricting competition. Any restraint that goes beyond what is necessary to protect
legitimate interests may render the agreement void.

21. Relation Between a Contract and Consideration

Consideration is a crucial element of a contract, representing the value exchanged between
the parties and ensuring the enforceability of the agreement. For a contract to be valid, there
must be a mutual exchange of something of value, known as consideration. Consideration can
be in the form of money, goods, services, or a promise to do or refrain from doing something. It
distinguishes a contract from a mere gift. The lack of consideration renders a contract
unenforceable.

22. Different Methods of Coercion.

Coercion can manifest through various methods, including physical harm, threats of harm,
economic duress, blackmail, or the abuse of legal rights.
Physical coercion involves actual force or harm, while economic coercion may include
threatening someone's livelihood or financial stability.
Blackmail occurs when one party leverages damaging information to coerce the other. The
courts consider the specific circumstances and the impact of coercion on the party's ability to
exercise free will when assessing the validity of a coerced contract.

23. Performance of Contract

Performance of a contract involves fulfilling the agreed-upon terms and obligations, leading to
the discharge of contractual duties. It can be complete or substantial performance, depending
on the contract's terms. Complete performance occurs when all aspects of the contract are
fulfilled as specified, while substantial performance occurs when most elements are fulfilled with
minor deviations. Performance is a fundamental aspect of contract law, and failure to perform
may lead to remedies for breach of contract.

24. Promise
A promise is a commitment or assurance to do or not do something, forming the basis of
contractual agreements. Promises are integral to the offer and acceptance process in contract
formation. When a promise is supported by consideration and meets other legal requirements, it
becomes an enforceable contract. Promissory estoppel may also apply when a promise is made
without consideration but is relied upon by the promisee to their detriment.

25. Illegal Consideration

If the subject matter or purpose of consideration is illegal, the entire contract becomes void.
Illegal consideration involves promises or actions that go against the law or public policy. Courts
will not enforce contracts based on illegal consideration, and parties involved in such contracts
cannot seek legal remedies for their enforcement.

26. Competent Parties

Competent parties in a contract must have the legal capacity to enter into an agreement. This
includes being of sound mind, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and not suffering from
any mental incapacity. Minors, persons of unsound mind, and those under the influence of
intoxicants may lack the capacity to contract. Contracts with incompetent parties are voidable,
and the incapacitated party has the option to affirm or void the contract.

27. Contingent Contract

A contingent contract is one in which the performance and enforceability depend on the
occurrence of a specific event. The contract becomes enforceable only if the event happens.
Contingencies may be uncertain events, the certainty of which is beyond the control of the
parties involved. Contingent contracts allow parties to plan for future uncertainties and provide
flexibility in contractual relationships.

28. Stranger to Consideration Enforcing Contract

Generally, only parties who provide consideration can enforce a contract, but there are
exceptions. The doctrine of privity dictates that only parties to a contract can enforce or be
bound by its terms. However, in certain circumstances, a third party, even if not a direct party to
the contract, may enforce it. This includes cases where the contract intends to confer a benefit
on a third party, as established in the landmark case of Beswick v Beswick.