INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872

ASSIGNMENT

Name- SATWIK RAJ

Enrolment No.- A811122128
Topic- FREE CONSENT
Submitted to- SANDEEP MISHRA
SIR
What Does Free Consent Mean?

Free consent refers to an agreement when

both parties knowingly and willingly enter
into a contract of their own will. This
includes agreeing to all of its terms and
conditions and a mutual level of
understanding of the subject matter in the
contract.
CONT:
For a contract to be enforceable and sound,
this consensus must have been gained free of
any forms of coercion, cheating, undue
influence, fraud or pressure. In addition, the
contract must be free of mistakes or
misrepresentation by both parties. If consent
is gained by any of these means the contract
is considered void and unenforceable by law.
Free consent is constituted in section 14 of
The Indian Contract Act,1872.
Free Consent Defined in Sec.14
Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by —
1. coercion, as defined in section 15, or
2. undue influence, as defined in section 16, or
3.  fraud, as defined in section 17, or
4. misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or
5. mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21
and 22. Consent is said to be so caused when it
would not have been given but for the existence of
such coercion, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentation or mistake.
Consent when considered “not free”
The contracting parties might agree upon
something in the same sense. However, just
giving consent does not suffice, consent must
also be given freely for the purpose of
constituting a valid contract.
1. In the absence of consent, a contract is
considered to be void.
2. When there is consent but it is not free, the
contract is called to be voidable at the will
of the aggrieved party.
FOR INSTANCE :
Ankita agrees to sell his car to Bhavya.
Ankita is the owner of two cars and
wishes to sell the Swift.  Bhavya thinks he
is purchasing the Audi. Here Ankita and
Bhavya have not agreed upon the same
thing in the same sense. Therefore there is
no contract for there is no consent.
CASE LAW:
Raffles vs Wichelhaus (1964)
Two parties A and B entered into a contract
for sale for 125 bales of cotton arriving from
Bombay by a ship named “Peerless”. There
were two ships with the same name and
while party A had one ship in mind, Party B
had the other ship in mind. It was held by the
court that both the parties were not ad
idem and therefore the contract was void.
THANK YOU!