Assignment

Assignment topic: Case Analysis

Course Name: Law of Contract I

Course Code: Law 101

Semester: Spring 2020

Submitted to: Nadia Rahaman

Lecturer, Department of Law

East West University

Submitted by: Md. Sad Bin Abi

I’D: 2016-1-66-062

Date of Submission: 06-05-2020

Case No. 01
1
Name of the Case:

Mackilhcan V. Compagine des Messageries Maritines de-

-France (1880) 6 C. W. N. 227; 6 Cal. 227

Fact of the Case:

A passenger who purchased a ticket of the defendant company and it was written in the French
language. Where towards at the top of the ticket were the words to the effect that this ticket in
order to be available and it must be signed by the passenger to whom it is delivered. Moreover, at
the foot of the ticket there was a clause in red letters that the ticket was issued subject to the
condition printed on the back. One of those conditions was that the company incurred no liability
for any damage which the luggage might sustain. The vessel was wrecked by the fault of the
company’s servants, and the plaintiff’s luggage was lost. Then the plaintiff sued the defendant
company for damages. But the ticket was not signed by him. He stated that he did not understand
the French language and the conditions of the ticket had not been explained to him.

Related Laws: Section 3 of the Contract Act, 1872.

Issues of the Case:

i) Whether the company is liable or not and

ii) Whether the proposal of special terms has been effectually communicated or not and if so
then who has to take the liability.

Judgment of the Case:

It was held that the plaintiff had reasonable notice of the conditions and it was his own fault.
Moreover, it was held that the clause requiring the passenger’s signature was inserted for the
benefit of the company and that is why they might waive it.

Reason behind the Judgment of the Case:

In this case, basically the plaintiff is liable for the absence of his signature on the ticket which
was purchased by him from the company or the defendant party. Moreover, the proposals of the
defendant company and the communication of the proposals effectually communicated to him
under the special terms and conditions. But the plaintiff did not use his ordinary intelligence and
as to the absence of the plaintiff signature he has to take the liability for that particular
negligence. Moreover, the defendant company is entitled to assume that the person who is taking
the first class passage can read out the French language enough and though he as the opportunity
to get the translation of the language but he did not do that. Therefore, the company is not liable
for the damage because he accepted the special terms without inquiry.
Case No. 02

2
Name of the Case:

Raj Rani V. Prem Adib(1949) 51 Bom.

Fact of the Case:

In this case, a film producer entered into an agreement with a minor girl to act in a film. Later,
the same agreement was entered into by the father of the minor or her behalf with the producer.
On a breach of that agreement, the minor girl sued the producer through her father as her next
friend.

Related Laws: Section 10, 11 of the Contract Act, 1872.

Issues of the Case:

i) Whether a minor can entered into the agreement or not

ii) For the benefit of the minor whether the legal guardian or appointed guardian by the Court
can enter into an agreement or not on behalf of him/her.
iii) Whether the same agreement would be void or not if it was not the promise of the minor.
iv) Whether the minor is entitled to sue or not.

Judgment of the Case:

In this case, it was held by Justice Desai that a minor cannot enter into an agreement but can
enter into an agreement if it is the benefit of that minor only then, but it must be construed with
the legal guardian for the legal necessity and for the beneficial purpose of him/her and the
promise must be moved from the minor to the other as for the reason of consideration matter.

Further it was also held that the agreement with the father was void and the minor is entitled to
sue through his or her legal guardian.

Reason behind the Judgment of the Case:

Basically, a minor is not competent to enter into an agreement, but where a minor who gives
value or promise on his or her part to a person who is competent to contract therefore it is
possible to make an agreement on behalf of that minor for the beneficial purposes of that minor.
For that reason the competent person on behalf of minor is entitled to sue someone or the other
party to whom the minor promised to act.
But it is the general principal that a minor cannot enter into an agreement. Moreover, if the
consideration which was moving from the father that was the minor’s promise to act and as the
minor could not in law promise; therefore, there was no consideration.
On the other hand, if the consideration moved from the father in the shape of an undertaking by
the father that his daughter (minor) should act, then the father could have sued. But he could
recover only the damages what he had suffered.

3
Otherwise, if it is the fact that there was no benefit of the minor then according to the general
principle of minor’s competency, the guardian was not competent to contract on behalf of that
minor. Therefore, the agreement of the father was void.