MID TERM – 1

Course: BUS 518

Faculty: Professor Dr. Mohammad Nazmuzzaman (MNB2)
Semester: Fall 2020
Section: 03
Student Name: Arifur Rahman Chowdhury
Student ID: 203 5397 660

CASE
Mr. P, an owner of a magazine, engaged Mr. Q to write an Article on the Liberation War of
Bangladesh which was to be published by installments in his magazine. Mr. Q, wanted to write
a rich article, and requested the publisher to allow him to publish every alternative week. Mr. P
allowed him with caution that he was to be paid only after the full publication of the Article. In
order to write the Article with proper reference, Mr. Q planned to buy the original copy of a
particular book which was rare. So, he entered into a contract with the manager of the Warsy
Book House, Mr. R, who was to deliver the only copy of that book on the payment of 5000/-
taka, of which 2000/- was paid in advance. Accordingly, Mr. R ordered the book from Calcutta
which was to be delivered within 15 days via Railway. However, some corrupted officials of
the railway authority at the border refused to deliver the book to Mr. R, except upon the payment
of an illegal charge for carriage. Mr. R, being helpless, paid the illegal charge immediately since
the book was rare and that was the only copy available, with a plan to go to the court later on.
After obtaining the book, the Manager received another offer from Mr. C, who wanted to buy
the book on the payment of 8000/- taka. Therefore, he refused to deliver the book to Mr. Q on
the ground of inadequacy of consideration. Mr. R even wanted to return the money paid in
advance in full, with some interest if needed. Due to all these hurdles, Mr. Q failed to complete
his article in time and unfortunately, due to unavoidable circumstances, the publication of the
magazine was stopped.

Advise Mr. P, Mr. Q, and Mr. R.

Situation – 1 [Advise Mr. P]
ISSUE
Mr. P, engaged with Mr. Q by making a contract that Mr. Q will write an Article for Mr. P’s
magazine and Mr. P will give the payment after the full publication. But Mr. Q failed to complete
it in time because of some problems. Main issue is whether Mr. Q breached the contract or not.

RULE
According to The Contract Act, 1872, Law of the Performance of Contracts, Section 37, the parties
to a contract must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless such
performance is dispensed with or excused under the provision of this Act, or of any other law.
Five Essentials of a Valid Performance:

 Performance of a contract must be unconditional

 Contract must be performed by the promisor himself or by his authorized agent
 Contract must be performed at the time specified in the contract or at a reasonable time.
 Contract must be performed at the place specified in the contract.
 Promisee must have the reasonable opportunity to ascertain the things or service offered.
According to The Contract Act, 1872, Law of the Consequences of Breach of Contract, Section
75, a person who rightly rescinds a contract is entitled to compensation for any damage which he
has sustained through the non-fulfilment of the contract.

ANALYSIS
Here, Mr. P had performed his part of obligation of the contract. But Mr. Q failed to attempt
performance of contract. According to five essential elements, Mr. Q supposed to submit the article
to Mr. P in a reasonable time but he failed to do it in time. And in the case, there is no scenario
about discharging obligations for Mr. Q from Mr. P. So, as it is Mr. Q’s fault, he actually made
the breach of the contract.

CONCLUSION
Mr. P should either re-sign or cancel the contract between them. As par the contract, Mr. P still
liable to complete his obligation. As Mr. Q couldn’t perform his obligation, Mr. P should cancel
the contract first and then suit for compensation for his loss regarding the contract and as par rights
Mr. P can claim it.

1
Situation – 2 [Advise Mr. R]

ISSUE
Some corrupted officials of the railway authority refused to deliver the book to Mr. R, except upon
the payment of an illegal charge for carriage. Mr. R, being helpless, paid the illegal charge
immediately to get the rare book. Main issue here is as Mr. R was a victim for this situation, can
he suit against them or not.

RULE
According to The Contract Act, 1872, Chapter V, Law of Certain Relations Resembling those
Created by Contract, Section 72, liability of person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by
mistake or under coercion. It means a person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake
or under coercion, must repay or return it.

ANALYSIS
Here, some corrupted officials charged some money for carriage from Mr. R illegally. But as the
book was so rare, Mr. R immediately paid the illegal charge. So, this situation falls under coercion.
As, those corrupted officials committed crime by taking illegal charges and also by using the force
not to deliver that book to Mr. R, if he was refused to give that payment. According to the rule of
Section 72, Mr. R can claim that particular money from those officials as if there was a contract in
between them. So, those officials must need to repay the payment they took illegally. And as those
officials did crime as par coercion, they did criminal activities.

CONCLUSION
Mr. R must suit against those corrupted officials, so that Mr. R can claim his money back and as
they did coercion by committing crime, the court will take necessary actions against them.

2
Situation – 3 [Advise Mr. Q]

ISSUE
Mr. Q entered into a contract with Mr. R, who was to deliver the only copy of that book on the
payment of 5000/- taka, of which 2000/- was paid in advance. Later on, after getting another offer,
Mr. R refused to deliver the book to Mr. Q on the ground of inadequacy of consideration. Main
issue is whether Mr. R breached the contract or not.

RULE
According to The Contract Act, 1872, Section 2 (d), 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
consideration for the promise. Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration
for each other, is an agreement.
According to The Contract Act, 1872, Chapter II, Law of Contracts, Voidable Contracts and Void
Agreements, Section 23, the consideration or object on an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden
by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law or implies
injury to the person or property of another or the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public
policy.
According to The Contract Act, 1872, Law of the Consequences of Breach of Contract, Section
73, when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive,
from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damaged caused to him
thereby, which naturally arouse in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties
knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
According to The Contract Act, 1872, Chapter II, Law of Contracts, Voidable Contracts and Void
Agreements, under Section 25, An agreement is a contract when an agreement to which the consent
of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the
inadequacy of the consideration maybe taken into account by the court is determining the question
whether the consent of the promisor was freely given.

ANALYSIS
Based on the case information, Mr. Q need a book for his writings, and he entered into a contract
with the Manager Mr. R, by agreeing that Mr. R will deliver the book to Mr. Q for 5000 Tk and
Mr. R also took 2000 Tk from Mr. Q in advance. So, according to consideration rule, Mr. Q’s

3
promise to pay the sum of 5000 Tk is the consideration for Mr. R’s promise to deliver the book,
and Mr. R’s promise to deliver the book is the consideration for Mr. Q’s promise to pay the 5000
Tk. Obviously, these are lawful actions. If anyone violate it, court can take actions against him.
Later in the case, Mr. R refused to deliver the book to Mr. Q as according to him there was an
inadequacy in the consideration. Mr. R also wanted to refund the advance and wanted to give
interest if needed. According to these words, it is cleared that Mr. R had done wrong thing and
wanted to compensate Mr. Q to cover up the situation.

CONCLUSION
I will definitely advise Mr. Q to suit against Mr. R as he breached the contract. Because that
contract was set upon both Mr. Q and Mr. R considerations. And this agreement can’t be void as
there is lawful considerations and the consent of Mr. R was freely given. Though, Mr. R said, there
is an inadequacy of the consideration, court will take actions against Mr. R as there is free consent
and both of the parties are legally bind. More importantly, Mr. R mentioned to give refunds and
interests to Mr. Q but it won’t be a solution for the cause. For not fulfilling the contract, Mr. R has
to provide proper compensation to Mr. Q so that he can cover up all his losses.