Ans1.

Meaning of Undue Influence: “Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872”, states
that a contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations
subsisting between the parties are such that the parties are in a position to dominate
the will of the other and used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the
other. A person is deemed to be in that position:
a) where he holds real or apparent authority over the other or stands in a fiduciary
relation to him;
b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or
permanently affected by reason of old age, illness or mental or bodily distress.
c) where a man who is in position to dominate the will of the other enters into
contract with him and the transaction appears to be unconscionable, the burden of
proving that it is fair, is on him, who is in such a position.
In the given problem, A applies to the banker for a mortgage at a time while there is
stringency in the money market. The banker declines to make the loan besides at an
unusually high ROI. A accepts the mortgage on those terms.
This is a transaction in the everyday course of business, and the contract isn't
induced by way of undue influence. As between parties on a same footing, the court
will not hold a bargain to be unconscionable merely on the ground of high interest.
Only where the lender is in a position to dominate the will of the borrower, the relief
is granted at the ground of undue influence. However, this isn't the situation on this
problem, and consequently, there may be no undue impact.

Ans2.
According to section 2(b) of the “Indian contract Act, 1872”, an Acceptance is
“when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies is assent thereto, the
proposal is said to be accepted becomes a promise”. On the acceptance of the
proposal, the proposer is called the promisor/offeror and the acceptor is called the
offeree.

A valid acceptance must satisfies the following rules:-

a) Acceptance must be obsolute and unqualified.
b) Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror.
c) Acceptance must be according to the mode prescribed (or) usual and
reasonable manner.
d)  Acceptance must be given with in a reasonable time.
e) Acceptance must be given by the parties (or) party to whom it is made.
f) Acceptance must be expressed (or) implied
g) Acceptance may be given by performing some condition (or) by accepting
some consideration.
h) Acceptance must be made before the offer lapses (or) before the offer is
withdrawn.

Ans3.
i) Since the cheque is crossed with ‘not negotiable’ that means the transferee
cannot get a better title than that of transferor. So, here A didn’t commit any
offence as here the not negotiable word came on crossing and because of this
crossing the cheque becomes made available to pay to bearer that is to anyone
who holds it.
j) Here, B will not get any relief as the transaction is totally lawful under the
Negotiable instrument act, 1881.

Ans4.
The given case is under the chapter of negotiable instrument which means
promissory notes, bills of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.
In this set case Abhishek holds the promissory note as a holder in due course.
He gives it to Aishwarya. Holder of due course refers to an individual who
takes a commercial paper for value, in good faith, with the belief that it is valid,
with no knowledge of any defects. He must have taken the instrument for value
before maturity.
Here Aishwarya becomes holder in due course because as per the section 9 of
holder in due case says that the person can be call it as holder in due case in the
title of the person whom he derived his title. Under section 42 of privilege of a
holder in due course says that, the acceptor of a bill of exchange or promissory
note will be liable to the holder in due course. He cannot say that the other parties
to the bill were fictitious.
Aishwarya accepted the same promissory note with a good faith with the belief
that it is valid. Therefore, here Aishwarya is Holder in due course

Ans6.
This problem is basically based on the provisions of section 160 and 161 of the
Indian Contract Act 1872. For that reason, it's the duty of the bailee to return
or supply the goods bailed according to the bailor’s directions, without demand as
quickly as the time for which they have been bailed has expired, or the purpose
for which were bailed for any loss, destruction of the goods from that time
(section 161), notwithstanding the excercise of affordable care on his part.
Therefore, applying the above provisions inside the given case, Mahesh is
responsible for the loss, even though he was not negligent, but because of his
failure to deliver the automobile within the time period.

Ans7.
Invitation to Offer: The Offer ought to be distinguished from an invitation to
offer. An offer is the final expression of willingness by the offeror to be certain by
his Offer should the party chooses to accept it. Where a party, without expressing
his final willingness, proposes certain terms on which he is inclined to
negotiate, he does no longer make a Offer, however invites the opposite party to
make an Offer on those terms. That is the basic difference between Offer and
Invitation to Offer.
The display of articles with a price in it in a self-service shop is simply an
invitation to offer. It's in no sense an Offer for sale, the acceptance of which
constitutes a Contract.
In this case, Smt. Prakash in choosing a few articles and approaching the cashier
for payment clearly made an Offer to buy the articles decided on by her. If the
cashier does no longer accept the price, the buyer can't compel him to sell.

Ans8.
In a hire-purchase agreement, the owner hires goods to the hirer with an
option to purchase the goods when he has made the payment of a certain sum.
By this system, the purchaser who is unable to pay the full price of the asset at
one lump sum, gets facilities to acquire an asset and after making the payment of
an initial amount called premium, the purchaser pays the balance consideration
money in instalments.
So, keeping this in mind Mr. X who has taken machinery from Mr. Y on hire-
purchase basis has no title to the goods. He is not the owner of the goods till now
and therefore Mr. X cannot pass on the title to others. Its not the fault of Mr. A
but of Mr. X.
Ans9.
Mr. A who sold his AC to Mr. B stating that it was 1 year old when it was 3 years
old did wrong and Mr. B can return the good at anytime and can easily get the
amount back. It doesn’t matter now whether the AC is in working condition or
not.

Ans10.
After getting the home theatre checked from his engineer and getting the
estimated price by him, Mr. B took the decision of buying the home theatre even
after the price offered to him was more than the expected price.
So, if the home theatre is now broken or not working Mr. B cannot return his
goods as he is now sole owner of the product. Also, before selling the home
theatre Mr. A had provided reasonable opportunities to Mr. B to verify the
status/condition of the good that he was selling.
Therefore, Mr. B is taking the risk on his own and is himself responsible for any
damage or loss after the purchase.