S.
CASE NAME IMPORTANCE FACTS
1. Joseph Lochner v. People of the SC held that workers Freedom of
State of New York [1905] Contract being violated because
of the statute
2. Kulger v. Romain [1971] Unconscionable terms
3. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt Knowledge & intention are
[1913] essential [motive is not] - no
acceptance of offer [sec 8] so no
contract - acted under servant
obligation - Doctrine of Privity: a
contract cannot impose rights or
obligations on any person who is
not a party to the contract
4. Harvey and another v. Facey and Implied or Expressed contract
others [1893] [sec 9] - court held that mere
statement of lowest price vendor is
willing to sell at does not contain
an implied contract
5. Williams v. Carwardine [1833] Motive has no bearing on the
contract - Advertisement
amounts to a general promise to
reward any person who performed
the condition mentioned in it
6. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball In such contracts the
Company [1892] communication of acceptance is
not required as the performance of promised in if user caught
the stipulated act will constitute
acceptance – No one is bound to
perform as per the ad but if
someone does it having seen the
offer, he/she/they are entitled to the pay-up - courts enforced the
reward
7. Har Bhajan Lal v. Harcharan Lal Landmark case of General Offer, D issues $500 pamphlet hand-bills
[1925] hand-bills are an open offer to the
world, capable of acceptance by
any person who fulfils the
conditions - Substantial
performance of contract
8. Upton Rural District Council v. Implied Contract [s 9], the
The Bakeshop Act limited
working hours for bakery
employees
Defendant used fraudulent &
deceptive practices to sell
educational books, court agreed
Plaintiff [servant] goes to look for
missing boy - Defendant issues
$500 hand-bills - P finds boy and
brings him back home - demands
for reward - court refuses
Telegram case - Plaintiff wants to
buy defendant’s property - an
exchange of messages on telegram
- P says a contract was formed -
court refuses
P’s husband murdered D’s relative
- P withheld info from police - D
issued $20 hand-bills for new info
that would - P gave more info to
clear her conscience before dying
- new info led to conviction - P
claims reward - D refuses stating P
was not induced by the reward to
give info - court enforced the
contract and P got rewarded
D advertised the product as cure
for influenza - $100 reward
influenza after using as directed -
P bought the ball and used it as
directed and caught influenza,
asked for reward - D refused to
contract and P got rewarded
to find his boy and bring him
home - P finds the pamphlet, finds
the son - sends him to police and
telegrams D for reward - D refuses
to pay saying P didn’t bring the
boy back home - courts enforced
the contract and P got rewarded
D’s farm caught fire - he called
 Powell [1942] services were rendered on an
implied promise of being paid
extra – Even if the defendant
lacked the knowledge about fire
department jurisdictions, he gave
the order for the fire dept. he
wanted [upton] and he got it, he
got the services that he requested
for, there is no escape from the
legal liability emitting from this
implied contract
9. Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Are ADVERTISEMENTS an
Surplus Store [1957] Offer or Invitation to Offer -
distinguish an offer from an
invitation to offer via TEST OF
MUTUALITY OF
OBLIGATION - the contracts
terms could not be changed after
acceptance [referring to the store’s
house-rule] - the offer by D was
clear, definite, and explicit and left
nothing open for negotiation
10. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Is DISPLAY OF GOODS an
Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Offer or an Invitation to offer –
ltd. [1952] when is an offer accepted in a self-
service store - invitation to offer is
not binding
11. McPherson v. Appana [1951] Similar to Harvey v. Facey
Upton Police district - the police
called Upton Fire Dept. - none of
the 3 knew until later that it was
not under UFD’s jurisdiction but
of Pershore Fire Dept. instead -
UFD is entitled to extra money if
going outside its juris, it demands
so from D - D refuses saying he
had no intention or knowledge of
this - courts enforce the contract
and make D pay the UFD the
extra charge
The defendant store put out 2 ads
on 2 separate Saturdays for cheap
$1 clothing – P saw the ad the 1st
time, went to store, indicated his
readiness to pay $1, the store
refused stating its house-rule that
the offer is only intended for
women – P saw the 2nd ad a few
days later, went to the store and
indicated his readiness to pay $1
again, the store refused again
stating that the plaintiff is aware of
the house-rule, courts directed the
defendant store to compensate
the plaintiff for a breach of
contract
D's shop had a self-service feature
- meds displayed on shelves,
customer will choose and keep in
his basket, pay the pharmacist – P
said this policy is unlawful, as
display of goods is an offer, sale is
concluded when customer keeps
meds in basket, hence unlawful as
no supervision by pharmacist as
reqd. under Poisons act – court
ruled in favour of the defendant,
held that as the pharmacist can
refuse the money, sale is
concluded when goods are paid
for, thus not unlawful under
poisons act
Appellate Case - the Appellant
was 1st Defendant, the 1st
respondent was 1st Plaintiff, his
employees were 2nd respondent –
D made an offer of $5k to R1 for
property, R2 told D won’t sell

12. Entores ltd. v. Miles Far East
Corporation [1955]
13. Adams v. Lindsell [1818]
14. Powell v. Lee [1908]
Postal rule does not apply to any
form of INSTANTANEOUS
COMMUNICATION, in these
cases acceptance is when the
message is received – acceptance
must be communicated to the
offeror in a form which he is
capable of perceiving/assessing, it
does NOT MATTER that the
offeror never gets around to
perceiving or accessing it
POSTAL RULE/MAILBOX
RULE [s 4] – in these cases
acceptance is not when it is
notified to the offeror but rather
when it is in course in post,
acceptance takes effect on posting
(despite whether it reaches the
offeror or does so after a delay) –
mailbox rule is the default rule,
but can be done away with an
explicit mention in the offer
Acceptance communicated by an
AUTHORISED AGENT,
acceptance should be
communicated to the offeror either
by the offeree or by means of some
duly authorized individual on
his/her behalf
below $10k [an instruction from
R1], D contended that this was a
counter-offer and sent his
acceptance – R2 asked R1 if he
should sell the house to D for
$10k, R1 instead sold the house to
another buyer for a higher price of
$11k – D sued for specific
performance – court disagreed
with D’s viewpoint, cited Harvey
v. Facey
P was a London based trading
company - it sent an offer to D for
buying copper cathodes via Telex
[a form on instantaneous
communication] - D accepted it -
the contract was later not fulfilled
- issue of jurisdiction arose, the
country where acceptance was
completed will apply its domestic
law – court held that London was
the place of acceptance and the
correct jurisdiction - citing Carlill
it said that a contract is binding
only when the offeror has been
notified of the acceptance
D sent P an offer for selling fleece
(wool) on 2nd - the mail got a bit
lost and thus reached P on 5th - P
accepted and posted his
acceptance - acceptance reached D
on 9th - D was expecting it by 7th
hence sold the goods to another
buyer by then - P sued D for not
fulfilling the contract - P
contended that there was no
contract as the acceptance was not
notified - courts held that the
contract was made when D posted
his acceptance
P applied for the position of
headmaster in school - managers
decided to appoint him but no
official notification yet - one of the
managers in his individual
capacity communicates his
appointment to P - managers
decide to not appoint P - P sues for
breach of contract - courts hold
that there was no contract to be

15. Felthouse v. Bindley [1863] SILENCE is NOT an acceptable
mode of acceptance - any
acceptance of an offer must be
communicated clearly [s 7]
16. NHAI v. Ganga Enterprises [2003] REVOCATION of offer [s 5]
before acceptance is a completely
different aspect from forfeiture of
security money – EMD can be
encashed even if offer revoked
before acceptance
17. Household Fire Insurance and Postal rule affirmed - Postal of
Accident Insurance Co. v. Grant acceptance is enough to form a
breached
P wished to purchase his nephew’s
horse - both talked about price - P
sent a definite offer to N via letter
stating that if he does not hear
back from N regarding the horse it
would mean that N accepted his
offer and the horse is now owned
by P - N did not reply as he was
busy w/ work – D was running the
auction and was advised by N to
not sell the horse, despite this D
sold the horse – N revealed that he
intended to sell the horse to P – P
sued D in conversion to recover
the horse, the court held that
despite N’s intention to sell the
horse to P there was no proper
acceptance from N and hence no
contract of sale was formed, so P
didn’t own the horse – despite his
intentions, N did not give clear
indication of his acceptance to
bind himself in a valid contract
Appellate Case - A issued a tender
notice calling for tenders for
collection of toll on a highway –
Bid security was not performance
of contract and could be rejected
by A – R gave its bid for tender –
bank guarantee could be enforced
if the bid is withdrawn before 120
days – R was highest bidder, but
withdrew bid 1 day before
acceptance – A encashed the bank
guarantee – R filed writ petition in
HC for refund – court held that the
encashment was illegal as an offer
(bid) can be revoked before
acceptance – Appeal in SC – SC
dismissed R's initial petition
stating that even though a person
may have a right to withdraw his
offer, he has no right to claim
that the security be returned to
him as such security is given to
ensure that a contract comes into
existence
D wanted shares in P (company) -
allotment done and notice of
 [1879] legally binding contract even if
that post NEVER reached the
offeror – acceptance is valid till
both parties consider postal as
valid means for communication
18. Bhagwandas v. Girdharilal [1966] Contract is formed where
acceptance is communicated to
the offeree, hence courts in whose
JURISDICTION this happens can
try such suit
19. Sandhoo Lal Motialal v. State of REVOCATION of OFFER [s 5]
M.P. [1972] must be done before its acceptance
is completed against the proposer
i.e.: before its acceptance is put
in course of transmission
20. Balfour v. Balfour [1919] LEGAL INTENTION TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT –
distinction b/w domestic
agreement and contractual
agreement – ORAL PROMISE
in a MARRIAGE – lack of
animus contrahendi
21. Eastland v. Burchell Like Balfour but agreement was
made DURING SEPARATION
22. Errington v. Wood [1951] REVOCATION of an OFFER in
a UNILATERAL CONTRACT
[after the death of offeror] can
only be done if the other party fails
allotment posted which never
reached D (so he never paid) -
P went bankrupt, liquidator asked
D to pay for shares - D refused,
stated that he is not a shareholder
as there was no binding contract –
court held that there was a legally
binding contract
Appellate Case – A of Khamgao
entered into a contract of
supplying cotton seeds to R of
Ahmedabad – R filed suit against
A for failing to supply seeds – SC
followed Entores Ltd. and
concluded that the contract was
concluded in Khamgaon
P sent an offer to the govt. [D] in a
tender - P later revoked his offer –
however, this revocation was done
after D posted its acceptance – P
said he didn’t get the letter – D
said the letter was duly posted –
court enforced the contract
P is D’s wife – the couple went to
England for vacation – P fell ill
[arthritis], both decided D should
go back and she’ll stay till she
recovers – D made oral promise of
sending monthly payments to P –
their relationship fell apart over
time – D stopped sending money –
P filed a suit alleging breach of
contract – court held that there
was no contract between the
parties, as at the time there was
no intention to form legally
binding contractual obligations –
it was merely a domestic
agreement
Court held that there was a
contract as the parties were not on
amicable terms at the time and
hence there was an intention to
form a legal relationship with
legal ends
D is P’s daughter in law – P’s
husband bought a house to his son
and D – D paid the mortgage
weekly – P’s husband kept the
 to live up to their side of the
contract – “if xyz was the offeror’s
position during his lifetime, xyz
will be his position after death too”
23. Tata Cellular v. Union of India TENDER is an invitation to offer
[1994] – the terms of an invitation to
tender CANNOT be open to
judicial scrutiny as the decision to
accept the tender is reached by
process of negotiations through
several tiers & such decisions are
often made qualitatively by experts
– court reviews the manner in
which the decision was made not
the decision
24. Bank of India v. OP Swarnakar VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
[2003] SCHEMES are INVITATION to
offer – an offer can be
REVOKED any-time before
ACCEPTANCE [s 5]
25. Mukul Dutta v. Indian Airlines T&C form binding Implied
Corporation [1962] Contract [s 9] under 2 conditions:
offeree knew conditions were
written there but didn’t read them,
AND offeree knew there were
writing but did not knew they were
conditions but the offeror has
taken reasonable & necessary
measures to give notice of the
term to the offeree
legal documents but promised to
give them to D later – P’s husband
died while she was the house
owner – D’s husband left the said
house and started living with P – D
occupied the said house – P
brought a suit against D to seek
possession of the property – court
dismissed the claim for
possession
Appellate Case – Dept. of telecom
invited tenders for “cellular mobile
phone service” in 4 major cities –
companies shortlisted – case filed
in HC alleging the tender was
rigged to favour certain companies
– court set aside the order
granting license to the 8
companies – revised list – Tata
Cellular [A] left out this time –
appeal made in SC
Appellate Case – Nationalised
banks introduced a voluntary
retirement scheme – 1lakh
employees applied under the
scheme – 2k employees withdrew
their application – despite
withdrawal those applications
were accepted – writ petitions filed
in HCs by employees – challenged
the scheme’s validity as it didn’t
allow for revocation of offer – SC
dismissed banks appeals
P’s husband dies in an air crash –
she alleges it was because of D or
its employees’ negligence – D
avoiding all liability under
conditions of carriage – P
maintains her husband had no
notice of the said conditions,
hence did not accept them, thus
not binding – D showed that
although T&C in small letter, the
same was displayed in big font in
airline office - court held that
there was an implied agreement,
they were satisfied that D gave
reasonably sufficient notice that
the tickets are issued subject to the
conditions of carriage
26. Inter Globe Aviation v. N. Similar to Mukul – Conditions of
Satchidananda [2011] Carriage [CoC] in E-tickets -
SUFFICIENT NOTICE -
contract IS binding even if the
passenger DOESN’T read the
terms provided that sufficient
notice has been brought to the
conditions by the other party
27. Currie v. Misa [1875] Defines CONSIDERATION [J.
Lush] – benefit to one party OR
determinant/loss to other party
28. Durga Prasad v. Baldeo and others Doctrine of CONSIDERATION
[1880] [s 25] – a contract is void if no
consideration is present – “at
desire of promisor” [s 2 d]
29. Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie USUALLY, no consideration in
Mahmod [1887] subscription given for charitable
object – in this case people knew
money was going for town hall
construction, so consideration was
present
Appellate Case – R booked ticket
– R’s flight was cancelled and
faced lot of trouble due to bad
weather – sued for deficiency of
service & negligence – SC
enforced Conditions of Carriage
[CoC] regarding jurisdiction,
sufficient notice is brought to
CoC by the airlines and thus binds
the parties – CoC also limits A’s
liability for delays arising out of
circumstances beyond its control
(bad weather) – SC set aside the
reward given by lower courts - R's
agony didn’t arise from deficiency
of service & negligence
Bank L sold D 4 Bills of Exchange
drawn from P’s banking firm – D
says will pay up in 3 days - L gave
P D’s security as payment of debt
– D discover L’s financial
condition, refuses to pay – says
there is no consideration so no
contract – court agreed with D
P built a market on the advice of a
collector – All defendants
occupied shops in market – Later,
D promised 5% commission to P
as consideration for building the
shops – D did not pay the
commission – P sued shopkeepers
who didn’t pay the promised
commission – court held that
under [s 2 d] “at desire of
promisor” is not fulfilled hence
no consideration, contract is void
– commission was not
consideration for the construction,
collector was
P is a trustee in Howrah town hall
fund – subscription list increased,
commissioners got into a contract
with contractor - D subscribes his
name for $100 – later D refuses to
pay, P sues for payment – HC
held D liable to pay – D’s
consideration was town hall’s
construction hence contract
formed – obligation to pay
contractor incurred
30. Tweddle v. Atkinson [1861]
31. Nawab Khwaja Muhammed Khan
v. Nawab Husaini Begum [1910]
32. MC Chacko v. State Bank of
Travancore [1970]
33. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd.
v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd. [1915]
Natural Love & Affection is
NOT sufficient
CONSIDERATION [J.
Crompton] – Doctrine of Privity
Exception to Doctrine of Privity
– CHARGES – 3rd party charge
holder can also enforce contract
Exception to DoP – Exception of
CHARGE – 3rd party can enforce
contract if it’s a beneficiary of the
charge
Under Doctrine of Privity only
parties to a contract can sue for
Breach of Contract – Doctrine of
Consideration
P’s father & Mr. Guy mutually
agreed to pay sums of money to P
and Guy’s daughter after they get
married – marriage happens – Guy
dies before paying – P’s father
dies before enforcing the contract
– P sues D [executor of Guy’s
estate] – court held that P was not
a party to the agreement and thus
cannot enforce the contract
P filed suit to recover allowance,
enforcing agreement executed by
D [her father-in-law] for the
consideration of R and his son’s
marriage – court recognised
exception of CHARGES and
MAHOMADEN MARRIAGE to
DoP – still dismissed her petition
& appeal as the allowance was
for a wife living with her
husband, and P was not living
with her husband anymore
A was manager of bank R - his
father was handling an overdraft
agreement of 2 banks, he held
himself liable for the amount
under the same via letters of
guarantee – he executed a deed
giving property to A, in it he said
that LoGs were executed on A’s
request, A [& property] is liable
for paying amount due to the bank
and leftover LoGs – creditor bank
sued A, his dad & debtor bank for
amount due under the overdraft
agreement – contended that a
charge on A’s property was made
because of the deed – court
dismissed the suit stating that the
creditor bank is not a party to the
deed, hence cannot enforce it,
cannot avail exception of charge
as its not the beneficiary – as the
contract indemnified other family
members against Chacko, it didn’t
create a charge in favour of D
P sells tyres to Dew under a
contract – prohibited reselling of
tyres at lower prices, if resold the
reseller will have to agree with

34. Thomas v. Thomas [1842]
35. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v.
State of U.P. [1979]
36. Universe Tankship Inc. v.
International Transport Worker’s
Federation [1982] [Lord Diplock]
37. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas
Ghose [1903]
same – Dew resells tyres at listed
price to D – D resells the tyres at
lower prices – P sued D – court
dismissed the suit as there was no
contract between P and D – also
there was no consideration for D
against the reselling-promise
Distinction b/w MOTIVE & On the day of his death P’s
CONSIDERATION & husband said P should get one of
CONDITION - MOTIVE is not the house or lifetime money from
the same as consideration as estate – D, executor of the estate,
consideration must be something agrees for the latter “in
which is of value in the eyes of consideration of the husband’s
the law –CONDITION [here, P desire”, granted the widow would
being a widow], in Carlill claimant pay $1 ground rent & maintain the
provided consideration for the house – D later tried to dispossess
defendants promise by using the P, claimed no contract coz no
smokeball and her catching the consideration - court held that
influenza was a condition of her there was a contract, it
entitlement to enforce that recognised the $1 rent as good
promise consideration regardless of it
being economically inadequate
Doctrine of PROMISSORY Govt. assured total tax exemption
ESTOPPEL – harm/damages to new industrial units – so P took
suffered by a party NOT heavy loans for new plant – Govt.
NECESSARY for applying this changed tax policy, industries
doctrine, promise binding even taxed at varying rates – court
in ABSENCE of detriment applied doctrine of promissory
estoppel – no tax imposed for
3years
Illegitimate pressure, D blacklisted P’s ship from
Commercial pressure – use of leaving the port in context of a
economic duress is not a tort per trade dispute – P paid $6k in D’s
se, it gives rise to action for welfare fund for ships release – P
restitution not action for damages sought to recover the amount as
consent was under economic
duress – court agreed and allowed
recovery
Contract w/ MINOR is VOID R, a minor, secured a mortgage
ab-initio [s 11] – Promissory deed [from A] for his own
Estoppel cannot apply to minors property – R’s mum sent a letter
– Minors’ guardians will not be about his minority to A – knowing
liable for dealing done by the R’s minor status, A’s rep still gave
minor w/o their consent hence not money to R – R [1st P] sued A
liable to return the amount taken asking for revoking contract due to
by minor under any such dealing R being a minor – court agrees
and holds the contract void ab-
s 65 [RESTITUTION] didn’t initio – R cannot be made to give
apply as contract was void ab the money back to A as he was
initio NOT BOUND by the promise

38. Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh [1928]
39. Leslie ltd. v Sheill [1914]
40. Kashiba v. Shripat [1894]
41. Tikki Lal v. Komalchand [1940]
42. Edaval Kavingal Kelappan
Nambiar v. Moolakal Kunhi
Raman [1956]
43. Raj Rani v. Prem Adib [1949]
A minor misrepresenting his
majority does NOT lose his
minority, however doctrine of
RESTITUTION does apply in
such circumstances
This case espoused the doctrine of
EQUITABLE RESTITUTION
[traceable possession necessary]
[repayment begins when
restitution ends] – loan contracts
with a minor are VOID
Lex Loci Contractus, law of
DOMICILE – also the
foundation case for LIABILITY
OF THE SURETY, any
discussion on the topic is from the
exposition in this case
Affirms Kashiba about Surety’s
liability - Surety who
misrepresents minor’s age, enters
into a primary contract himself and
is personally liable – Surety-
Indemnity distinction
Breaks away from Kashiba’s on
Surety’s liability [s 128]-
distinction b/w contract of
indemnity & guarantee [s 124 &
126] – surety of a minor is NOT
liable because a surety’s liability
arises out of the principal’s
liability - in English law, minor
contracts are voidable, in India,
they are void
Consideration by minor’s father
was minor’s promise to act, BUT
as minor cannot promise, there is
no consideration - had the
consideration by father was an
undertaking by him, that his
daughter should act, he could have
sued
executed in the contract
D [minor] sold property to P by
misrepresenting his majority – P
paid money – D refused to sell
property – court held D’s
minority status, but applied DoR
[to strike a balance]
D obtained loans from P by
fraudulently misrepresenting his
majority - D sued him to recover
the money – court held that there
was no contract to enforce, but
directed restitution [DoR] BUT as
D spent the money that was not
possible
P is 17 years old – had domicile of
British India but entered a bond in
Kolhapur [princely state but no
British Law] – P’s dad indemnifies
her - Under Indian law she was a
minor, Kolhapur law she was a
major – court held that the
contract would be regulated
under law of domicile: British
law – she was NOT liable for the
bond – the father was held liable
A surety misrepresented a minor’s
age and got him a contract – court
held the surety personally liable –
in Kashiba, the father formed a
contract of indemnity
not many facts provided in this
case except that a major person
acted as a surety for a minor’s
contract and misrepresented his
age - court held that in Kashiba,
P’s dad formed a contract of
indemnity [not guarantee] and he
was hence liable, hence surety is
not liable as his is a contract of
guarantee not indemnity
P [a minor]’s dad gets into an
agreement with D [film prod.] – D
agreed to pay $9k and imposed
some obligations on P – the
contract demanded signs of both P
and her dad: 2 agreements formed
– D was sued by P for giving the
role to someone else – court held

44. Sona Bala Bora v. Jyotirindra Soundness of Mind [s 12] –
Bhatacharjee [2005] BURDEN OF PROOF regarding husband suffered from fits of
soundness/unsoundness of mind - insanity – he was to gift 1/3
unsoundness of mind means a
person’s incapability to judge savings account for them etc. – in
consequences of his acts, NOT
LUNACY
45. Cundy v. Lindsay [1878] CONSENT [s 13] – agreement on
the same thing – mistake of
identity
46. Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Defence of ‘NON EST
Prasad [1990] FACTUM’ is available ONLY if
the mistake is as to the very
nature or character of the
transaction – DISPARITY b/w
effect of the document actually
signed and the document as it
was believed to be must be
RADICAL, FUNDAMENTAL
etc.
47. Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder MISTAKE both parties, void [s
Singh [1998] 20]
that both agreements are VOID –
the father’s promise had no
consideration
Appellate Case - A[1st P]’s
bungalows to her & family, open a
return he was allowed to sell 2/3
bungalows to buyer of his choice –
he suddenly sells the entire
property to R [1st D] – A claims
her husband was mentally
unsound while executing the deed,
R claims otherwise – R was aware
of the fits and got husband
examined [& declared normal] by
a doctor before the deed - court
held that husband was of
unsound mind while executing
the deed and thus the contract is
void
P sold handkerchiefs to Blenkarn –
mistook Blenkarn for a similarly-
named another popular company –
Blenkarn sold the goods ahead to
D – P claimed that, as Blenkarn
and P never agreed on the same
thing, the consent was not real –
So Blenkard never owned the
goods to transfer their ownership
to D [D was not aware of
anything] – court agreed with P
and held D liable for conversion
A inherited her father’s vast estate
– R appointed as her agents to
manage estate – Docs drafted in
Hindi, A does not know hindi – A
finds an unauthorised clause for
sale of properties - R had made
fraudulent & collusive sales of
properties for relatives - A sought
cancellation of sale-deeds,
delivery of possession, & rendition
of accounts of incomes & profits
A & R had contract a for sale of a
land - R paid earnest money –
both parties made a mistake of fact
regarding land area – R sued A

48. Kessowji Tulsidas v. Harjivan
Mulji and Shamkuvarmahu [1997]
49. Chikham Amiraju v. Chikham
Seshamma [1917]
50. Workmen of Appin Tea Estate v.
Presiding Officer [1966]
51. Lakshmi Amma v. T Bhatta
[1970]
for not executing transfer deed -
HC passed a decree for refund – A
appealed
Misprison of felony, concealing D1 was under P’s debt – D2 [D1’s
knowledge of a crime & converting mother] gave guarantee in
it into a source of benefit – consideration for a 15day
can obtain securities from debtor; immunity from criminal
can threaten with prosecution if proceedings for D – total
debt arises from a criminal offence immunity if debt paid in time –
committed by debtor, BUT cannot court held that such a guarantee
obtain a guarantee of debt from can NOT be enforced and
3rd party by stifling prosecution dismissed the suit with costs on
as a consideration the defendants
COERCION [s 15]– voidable Husband [D] made his wife & son
agreements – threat to suicide [P] enter a deed favouring his
amounts to coercion and absence brother & father, under threat of
of free consent as it is criminal suicide – court held this as an act
under IPC – s15 & s16 v thin of coercion
distinction
Threat of STRIKE does NOT Industrial tribunal held that the
amount to COERCION delhi agreement was signed under
threat of strike, hence is not
binding - Court disagrees w/
industrial tribunal’s award and
holds the agreement as binding
UNDUE INFLUENCE [s 16] – R [1st P’s wife coz he dead] – P
under [s 16 2b] R was clearly in a was intellectually weak and old -
position to dominate the will of P R (1st D) got P to execute a will
– as the deed was prima-facie that bequeathed all his properties
unconscionable, the Burden of onto R - this was unsuccessfully
Proof [onus probandi] that the attempted before by R - as per
contract was not induced by UI deed, P only had life interest &
was upon R some benefits for his wife w/ the
property – P wanted the settlement
deed to be declared null and void –
court held that as UI can be
presumed, the contract is void

52. Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad Cannot skip stages in UI –
[1923] Question of unconscionability &
BoP can NOT ARISE before
position to dominate will is
established
D is P’s son – P sued D over
property dispute [they owned joint
property] - D mortgaged his
properties to P – interest rate
increased by 11 times – D held
that P took advantage of his
mental condition i.e.: UI – court
held the contrary

53. Lloyd’s bank v. Bundy [1975] A contract is VOID for D’s son wanted collateral for his
UNCONSCIONABILITY when business from bank P – D gave his
Unfair terms/Inadequate house as collateral – D’s son failed
 consideration - bargaining power to pay – P wanted to evict D and
was impaired by necessity, get property – D said terms of the
ignorance or infirmity - Undue contract are unconscionable and
influence or pressure, not refused - transaction was
necessarily consciously - Absence facilitated by the bank manager
of independent advice - who D trusted - D 'simply did back
SALVAGE AGREEMENTS – what he said' - M knew that D had
rescuers cannot take advantage w/ 'no other assets except the house –
ridiculous fee P sued D – court held the contract
void
54. Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller Clause removed for being R delivered food in Uber - R
[2020] unconscionable – Requiring low- signed Uber’s standard form
paid drivers to sign an Arbitration agreement to become a driver –
Clause removing their right to local there was an arbitration clause
court processes can be requiring $14k fees – despite the
unconscionable and, if so, the clause R sued A contending that
clause is not enforceable he is an employee under
Employment Act and Uber’s
agreement breached that act -
court held the clause invalid and
declined to set aside D’s court
proceedings in favour of
arbitration
55. Allcard v/ Skinner [1887] 2 types of UI – where there is P’s confessor introduced her to D
evidence that gift was a result of – D was a sisterhood’s leader – P
overt pressure – where UI can be wanted to join the sisterhood, had
PRESUMED from the to sign vow of poverty &
relationship between donor and obedience – P bequeathed all her
donnee – in 2nd type, burden of property to D under vow of
proof is on the donnee to prove poverty – Later, P left the
that gift was of donor’s free and sisterhood and demanded her
independent will property back – court held that P
Doctrine of UI is NOT to save was unduly influence BUT was
people from consequences of their barred by laches from getting
folly/imprudence BUT to save restitution
them from being victimised by
others
56. Bellachi v. Pakeeran [2009] If an illiterate, PARDANASHIN A [1st P] executed a deed in favour
woman executes a deed, the BoP of R [1st D] for $20k – A later
would be on the vendee to prove claimed the contract void for UI
the genuineness of the document by her brother – also claimed that
– A registered document is she got to know about the
carried with the presumption of execution of the deed when bank
being executed in accordance officers visited – court held that R
with law was not in a position to dominate
A’s will and A was not a person
wholly incapable of
understanding things, her story
was also held to be incorrect
57. Jugal Kishore Narain Singh v. Document was properly Widow got property after her
 Charoo Chandra Sur [1939]
58. Delhi Development Authority v.
Skipper Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
[2000]
59. Prem Chand v. Ram Sahai [1931]
understood by the widow and husband’s death – On her death, R
executed of her own will was entitled to the property –
Widow signed an 11year lease
with A (1919-1930) – lease had a
statement that it was read over and
explained to the widow, and it was
voluntary – she died in 1924, R
dispossessed A – A sued R in 1929
claiming profits from day of
dispossession to end of lease – R
stated that the widow did not act as
a prudent manager in making the
lease nor was it for the benefit of
the estate – no allegation about her
not understanding or voluntarily
executing the deed - court held
that A was entitled to the claimed
profits
Where the corporate character is D was the highest bidder in an
employed for committing illegality auction by P – 25% money was to
or for defrauding others, court be paid by D instantly, rest in 90
would ignore the corporate days – D deposited 25% but even
character and look at the reality after repeated extensions didn’t
and lift the CORPORATE VEIL deposit the rest – P proceeded to
to pass appropriate orders to do cancel the bid – D sued P to stay
justice - Indian courts of EQUITY, cancellation – new agreement b/w
if property acquired by defrauding P & D - D started advertising to
people then courts can make receive monies, before getting
necessary orders to restore them to permission to build on the plots - P
the position they would be in if not wanted to cancel again but D
for the fraud – One should not argued it would cause hardship to
benefit from his own wrong – Art 100s of people – SC asked P to
142, Power to do Complete pay 2.5cr to D and not construct or
Justice advertise till then - P still
advertised - SC took a suo moto
case for contempt – court held
that P defrauded a lot of people
and its directors property will be
available to satisfy the claims of
such people
[ s 19] if consent caused by fraud A [through his friend B] bought
or misrepresentation, defrauded property from R – Price paid was
person can insist to be put in 7k, calculated with gross income
position in which he would have of the village as given by R – B
been IF the representation made later finds that the gross income
had been true – s 19 gives no was much less in reality and even
right to sue for damages, the property’s size was also
EXCEPT a right to sue for smaller – A sued R contending
damages might arise in TORTS if that his consent was induced via
damages have been sustained misrepresentation – court held
 APART from the contract
60. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. [s 18] MISREPRESENTATION-
Soonderdas Dharamsey [1890] Positive assertion [unwarranted],
irrelevancy of innocence, causing a
party to the agreement make a
mistake as to the substance of the
thing which is the subject of the
agreement
61. P.C. Chacko v. Chairman, LIC of INSURANCE contracts are based
India [2008] on utmost faith, UBERRIMA
FIDES – DOCTRINE OF
DISCLOSURE requires one to be
objectively honest about questions
that are answered in such a
situation
62. Smith v. Hughes [1871] A unilateral MISTAKE is no
ground for recession of contract [s
22] – caveat emptor [buyer
beware] - question was not merely
about consensus ad idem (meeting
of the minds), but also what the
parties had communicated by their
conduct and words to one another
63. M.P. Power Generation v. Ansaldo Misrepresentation – contract is
Energia [2018] voidable ONLY if the consent
was caused by fraud or
misrepresentation - ordinary
diligence
that A cannot seek damages, only
remedy is to avoid the contract
D entered into a charter-party in
plaintiff company for a voyage –
SS runic vessel was described to D
as weighing 2800 tons, but when it
arrived it was actually 3000tons –
court held that misrepresentation
caused D to make a mistake as to
the size of the vessel, making the
contract voidable
P died 6 months after taking
insurance policy from company D
– P did not disclose a 4yr old
major surgery which was against
explicit questions that he had to
answer while taking policy – cause
of death was completely unrelated
to the operation - P’s family
claimed insurance amount, D
repudiated it – court held that the
contract can be avoided by the
aggrieved [D] on grounds of
misrepresentation of ‘material
facts’
P [a farmer] brought a sample of
his oats for D [race-horse trainer]
– D proceeded to order 50 quarters
– P sent 16 first – D said he
wanted old oats [only oats that
horses can eat] but these are new
oats – But the sample P sent earlier
was of new oats only - D refused
to pay – P sued D for breach of
contract – court held that the sale
of contract was valid and D
should pay up as he made a
mistake and was not misled by P
D got into an agreement with P for
refurbishment of 2 units of thermal
power plants in India – D
furnished 3 bank guarantees to P –
dispute between P & D – P
terminated all agreements and
invoked all BGs – P lost in
arbitration and D got the award –
appealed twice – finally, SC held
that there was misrepresentation
on P’s part in respect of the
capacity of the Plant as well as its

64. Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge
Jute Mills Co. [1906]
65. Union of India v. Colonel LSN
Murthy [2012]
[s 23] – OBJECT means purpose
or design – NOT the same as
consideration – Object or
consideration are unlawful if they
are of such nature that it would
defeat the provisions of any law
[s 23] - the word "law" in "defeat
the provisions of any law" is
limited to the expressed terms of
an Act of the legislature - unless
the effect of an agreement results
in performance of an unlawful
act, an agreement which is
otherwise legal is NOT VOID
operating parameters – court
agreed that P could not ascertain
plant’s parameters just from visual
inspection
D agreed to sell gunny bags to C
under a contract - D didn’t deliver
- P enforced the contract as C’s
assignee & sued D for damages –
D refused to recognise P ‘s
assignment as C’s assignee as the
assignment was done with the
object of defeating and delaying
the creditors of the assignor, hence
void – court agreed with D and
held the contract void as its object
was to defeat the provisions of
Insolvency Act
SLP – A invited tenders for supply
of fresh fruits for its troops - R
won the tender but stopped
supplying after 6 months – stated
that prices of all fruits had
increased making it impossible to
perform the contract – A rescinded
contract and used R’s security
deposit for recovering
expenditures made for buying
fruits during the contract period –
arbitration award was given to R,
R’s as the contract was held void
ab initio under s 23 of ICA hence
cannot be enforced for breach of
contract – SC disagreed with the
arbitrator and set aside the
award, contract held NOT VOID

66. Brij Mohan v. M.P. Road Absence of statutory provision
Transport [1987] authorising D’s actions – D
exercising Regional Transport
Authority’s powers and clutching
RTA’s jurisdiction
SLP – P entered into an agreement
with D to ply his bus as a nominee
for 5 years, expired in ’82 - D
applied for renewal but used
temporary monthly permits for
saving time - D started inviting
tenders from pvt operators for
running buses as nominees – P
sued D calling the ad invalid – P
got no temporary permit after ’85,
cannot ply his bus as nominee
anymore – filed SLP for 5yr
permit as given to similarly
situated people in the same court –

67. Sitram v. Mussamat Aheere
Heerahnee [1897]
[could not find the case]
68. Kores Manufacturing v. Kolok
Manufacturing [1957]
69. Bai Vijli v. Nansa Nagar [1885]
Hindu Marriage Contract
[s 23] – “involves or implies injury
to the person or property of
another” – RESTRAINT ON
TRADE
[s 23] IMMORAL – agreement
for future separation of husband
& wife is IMMORAL in eyes of
law – against good public morals
court held that the agreement
between P & D is unenforceable
as it is in contravention to MVA,
the advertisement by D was also
held to be equally ineffective
Assamese Hindus entered into a
contract - if husband left the
village in which his wife and
friends reside the marriage shall be
VOID
P & D entered into an agreement
to not employ other’s worker if he
worked with the other company in
the last 5 years – court held it to
be an unreasonable restraint on
trade, companies should instead
make their employment look
attractive with good wages etc.
Advance paid to a married women
to divorce her husband – court
held that the agreement was void
ab-initio, hence can’t be enforced

70. Gaurinath Mookerji v. Madhumani [s 23] – IMMORAL
Peshkar [1872]
71. Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Wagering transactions as object
[1959] of an agreement – distinction b/w
illegal (unlawful) and void,
wagering contract are void but
NOT ILLEGAL, they are lawful
but cannot be enforced – wagers
are not opposed to public policy -
IMMORALITY under [s 23] is
confined to only SEXUAL
IMMORALITY
72. Central Inland Water Transport [s 23] Against PUBLIC POLICY,
Corporation v. Brojo Nath unconscionable clause affecting a
Ganguly [1986] large part of public, harmful to
public interest, against public
Landlord cannot recover the rent
of lodgings knowingly let to a
prostitute who carries on her
vocation there
A & R entered into a partnership
to carry on wagering transaction
with 2 firms – agreed that contract
would be in R’s name but
profit/loss will be borne equally –
net result of all transactions was
loss, R had to pay amount due to
the firms – A denied liability,
stated that the agreement was void
– court held the wagering object
as being forbidden by law and
opposed to public policy hence
contract void – appealed – court
held that agreement void under [s
30] not as the object was not
unlawful under [s 23] –
FINALLY, court held that the
partnership was NOT
UNLAWFUL under [ s 23]
A is a govt. company – Company
B [similar function as to A]
terminated by a HC order – B’s
workforce transferred to A – staff

73. Cooper v. Phibbs [1867]
74. Haji Abdul Rahman Allarakhia v.
Bombay and Persia Steam
Navigation Co. [1892]
75. Sheikh Bros ltd. v. Ochsner [1957]
76. Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt
Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd.
[1894]
good; broad interpretation of recruitment was at B’s discretion
public policy states that if no “head
and A had to pay the remaining
of public policy” is present for dues if any employee fails to be
guidance, CONGRUENCY TO recruited – new rules created &
PUBLIC CONSCIENCE can be applied to all employees – R was
used – UNCONSCIONABLE one of such transferred employees,
contracts [contrary to right & got confidential letter alleging
reason], b/w 2 parties with gross neglect in workplace, replied to it
inequality in bargaining powers on time – immediately terminated
using a clause from the new rules
– court held the contract void for
being opposed to public policy
Doctrine of MISTAKE, mistake P’s uncle owned a fishery – P
by BOTH parties - RES SUA [the leased it from him – Uncle died, P
thing is his], mistake as to the renewed lease with Aunt – Later
title of the property – Mistake in found under uncle’s will that P got
EQUITY renders an agreement life tenancy for fishery, meaning
VOIDABLE, NOT VOID lease was not needed – court held
the contract/lease voidable as
mutual mistake committed about
ownership of property or equity
Doctrine of UNILATERAL P chartered a steamer from D – P
MISTAKE – even in unilateral reqd. it to sail ‘15 days from Haj’
mistakes, if the mistake nullifies – D contracted w.r.t English dates
consent NO contract will arise - only – charter said “10 August (15
days after Haj) – P accepted
thinking its correct, later realised
15 days after Haj is actually 19
July – P sued for rectifying charter
with correct date – but D already
let all steamers, cannot provide P
one in July – court held that there
could be NO rectification as the
mistake was unilateral [only by
P], but further held that as the
mistake nullified consent the
agreement can be CANCELLED
[s 20] MUTUAL MISTAKE, A bought land from R – both
agreement entered into under a mistakenly believed that the land
mutual mistake as to a matter of could grow crops which in reality
fact essential to the agreement is it couldn’t – it was essential to the
VOID agreement - A sued R for relief -
[s 56] IMPOSSIBLE ACT, court held that A will get NOT
contract becomes void when the compensation as the agreement
act becomes impossible or was VOID under s 20 and s 56
unlawful
[Lord McNaughton] A is a world-wide reputed gun
Doctrine of RESTRAINT OF manufacturer – A sold his business
TRADE – EXCEPTION, if the to Company R and agreed to not
clause is reasonable – “… work for any rival business in the
 reasonable in reference to the world for 25 years – Later A starts
interests of the public, so framed working for rival business – R
and so guarded as to afford enforces the contract in court –
adequate protection to the party in court held that restraint of trade
whose favour it is imposed, while was prima-facie unlawful, BUT
at the same time it is in no way restraint of trade clauses should
injurious to the public.” be upheld if reasonable – court
upheld the clause in question
77. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coco Grant of Franchise - [s 27] R authorised A to produce R’s
Cola Co. [1995] Restraint of Trade – Exception, trademark products under an
if in promotion of trade agreement in 1993 [lasting till ‘98]
[commercial agreements] and - contract had a clause forbidding
reasonable in nature A from dealing with any other
company during the subsistence of
the contract – court held that the
agreement is not void under [s 27]
as it’s a commercial agreement
with a purpose to promote trade,
and the restrictive clause
promotes trades by requiring A to
wholeheartedly promote sales of
R's products – as the restriction is
also there only till the contract is
subsisting, it is reasonable
78. Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. [s 27] Restraint of Trade [Non- Co. R and a German Co. entered
Century Spinning and compete covenants] – exception, an agreement under which GCo.
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1967] restrains that are to be operative will transfer its technical know-
only during the period of how to R – the agreement
employment are NOT in restraint restricted R to use the know-how
of trade – in the case of post- exclusively for G’s tyre-cord yarn
termination employment plant – transfer of knowledge was
restraints, BoP is on employer to complete in 3yrs – A was
prove that there is a threat of loss appointed as a supervisor, signed a
of confidential trade secrets which SFA restricting him from engaging
could harm the company, even with any other company, inc. if he
then court will most likely abstain left before contract’s expiry – A
the employee from revealing took training, then resigned and
confidential information than a took similar work in another
complete restriction in employment company – court held that the
restriction on A was reasonable
& necessary for protecting
employer’s interests
79. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. PUBLIC POLICY [WIDE] – A placed an order on R to deliver
[2003] shift from narrow interpretation of equipment from European sellers
public policy in Renusagar Power for off-shore exploration –
Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. delivery got late because of worker
strike in Europe – A extended date
Heads of Public Policy: of delivery but deducted huge
prejudice of the state, interference amount from payment – R
in administration of justice, disputed the deduction, matter

80. ONGC Ltd. v Western Geco
International Ltd. [2014]
81. Rajshree Sugar Chemicals Ltd. v.
Axis Bank Ltd. [2011]
82. Shardaprasad v. Sikandar [1915]
violation of public
decency/morality, patent illegality
[added via Saw Pipes] [illegality
should not be trivial in nature]
Interference in an arbitration award
by a court is limited by section 34
of A&C Act 1996 – court can
interfere if award goes against
public policy i.e.: induced by
fraud or corruption
Derivatives & Financial
Instruments, are NOT WAGER
[s 30] as their purpose is similar
to insurer – What is expressly
permitted by law is NOT
opposed to PUBLIC POLICY
D took 2 undertakings in the
contract: apply for sanction
[subsidiary obligation], upon its
grant sell it to P [primary
obligation] – breach of subsidiary
obligation same as primary
obligation - no provision made for
if the sanction was refused – “this
referred to arbitration – award in
favour of R – appeal by A stating
that the award opposed public
policy & was patently illegal –
court set aside the award and
held that as the contract is in
clear & precise terms, A should
not be asked to prove his loss
A placed an order for U.S. origin
electrical equipment on R – due to
post-9/11 measures, R told A that
contract cannot be performed – A
accepted this but deducted
liquidated damages – arbitration
proceeds – arbitration award held
that A cannot validly deduct the
damages – A appeals in SC – SC
overturned the award & allowed
A to deduct damages – court
cannot interfere with awards but
this one was against public policy
P [a sugar exporter] had several
External Commercial Borrowings
from foreign bank, many of its
receivables were also in foreign
currency – P entered into a master
agreement with Bank D which led
to OPT contract - its essence was
that P would get $100k if $1 didn’t
touch 1.2 Swiss Franc within a
fixed period, but P would buy $20
million from the Bank if the
exchange rate touched 1.3 – P got
$100k from D – later approached
court and claimed that contract
was void under [s 30] - court held
that the contract was NOT a
wager because its purpose is
similar to insurance, it hedges
P’s risk, reduces the risk of
adversity
D entered into a contract to sell his
land to P – contract stated various
relief measures to be provided to P
if D refused to sell land after
obtaining sanction - D applied for
sanction to transfer his land to P –
sanction denied – D sold land to
someone else – P sued D for
 part of the contract was purely a
contingent contract, and if the
future event provided became
impossible, the contract fell
through” [s 32] – foreseen
contingency, parties should’ve
provided for in the contract for
such an eventuality but failed to do
so
83. Bashir Ahmed v. Government of [s 31] CONTINGENT contract -
A.P. [1970]
“It is true that the book was
bought for the company to be
floated, but we are unable to
appreciate how this makes the
contract contingent”
84. Startup v. Macdonald [1843] [s 32 2] Reasonable opportunity
of ascertaining - When time is not
mentioned, reasonable test
Dissenting opinion, there ought to
be REASONABLE TIME as well
as OPPORTUNITY, absence of
workers due to lateness of hour can
be pleaded as a factor to negate the
reasonable opportunity to ascertain
the quality & quantity of the goods
85. Vidya Vati v. Devi Das [1977] [s 46] promisor may perform
anytime during the usual business
hours of the specified day –
specific performance - court held
that the contract was contingent
upon getting the sanction, which
not happening made contract
void – held that parties should’ve
contemplated for the inability to
perform the contract as it was a
foreseen contingency, so no
provision in Special Relief Act
either
P opened a dawakhana on Nizam’s
invitation – Nizam appointed a
committee for saving dawakhana –
comm. decided that a company
should be floated – arrangements
to purchase P’s shop, medical
books, techniques etc. – decided to
compensate P for his goodwill –
sent P a 50k cheque for his unani
book – nothing further happened
for floating of the company – P
wrote to govt. to increase his
compensation and stated that he
was unable to sell 5lac worth
shares that he thought he would –
govt. directed to return P’s book &
recover 50k – D claimed that the
contract was contingent upon P
floating the company – P sued D
for recovering the rest of the sum -
court enforced the contract &
held it was not contingent upon P
floating the company, enabling P
to recover the rest of the money
P agreed to delived linseed oil to D
within the last 14 days of March –
P delivers on the last day at
830PM – D refused to accept
performance saying that it was late
– P sued D – court held that it
was a VALID tender made within
the contract stipulated time, even
though unreasonable time
[beyond business hours] D was
in a position to reasonably
ascertain the quality & quantity
of the goods
A agreed to pay advanced money
to R in return for residence for 2
years (26th Sept) – it was agreed
 merely because the tender has been that if R wished to repay on the
wrongly refused by other party expiry of the 2yrs, a 1-month
does not absolve the 1st party from notice should be given, making A
its obligation to make payment – liable to pay damages if not vacate
under the agreement, R could only – agreed that if R did not repay on
repay on expiry of 2 years [on 26th the expiry of 2yrs, he is not
Sept] he could not validly tender entitled to damages – R sent a 1-
repayment to A before 26th Sept, month notice before expiry of 2
hence making his 26th Aug tender years & tendered repayment, A
invalid refused to accept (26th Aug) – R
sued A for recovery of possession
– court held that A was not liable
to vacate or recompense as R
never made a valid tender i.e. he
could only repay A on or after
26th Sept
86. Kendall v. Hamilton [1879] Right of JOINT DEBTORS, W & M took a loan from P in
where an agent contracts in his order to finance shipments –
own name for an undisclosed Unknown to P, the shipments were
principal, the other party may sue in the joint benefit of W, M and D
the agent, or he may sue the – W&M were authorised to handle
principal, BUT if he sues the agent all financial arrangements – P
and recovers judgment, he obtained judgement against
CANNOT afterwards sue the W&M, they were insolvent,
principal, even if the judgment judgement unsatisfied – P found
does not result in satisfaction of the out about D – P sued D – court
debt, a single cause of action – held that P has exhausted his
Lord Penzance dissented right to action w/ W&M, and
hence cannot sue D
87. Mohd. Askari v. Radhe Ram Singh Doctrine of Kendall does NOT Multiple defendants, all managers
[1900] apply in India – [s 43] Right of of the joint family carrying on its
Joint Debtors is excluded, any of business – these Ds borrowed
such joint promisors can be money from P & his father on the
compelled to perform the whole security of mortgages – mortgages
of the promise – as the right which were executed by D16 & D17 in
forms the very basis of the their own name – P sued D16 &
doctrine, is absent, the doctrine it 17 only & obtained a decree for
itself is inapplicable in India – paid sale – court granted the declaration
heed to Lord Penzance’s dissent in that D1-15 were unaffected by the
Kendall decree as they were not party to 1st
suit – P sued D1-15, enforcing
mortgages against them – court
held that P is NOT precluded
from maintaining the suit against
D1-15
88. Jahar Roy v. Premji Bhimji [1977] Devolution of Joint Liabilities & A was a sublessee of a theatre as
Right [s 42] [s 45] do NOT an artist under an agreement with
account for a case where a joint R – A was allowed to use the
promisee does not want to join as theatre for a period of 1 year,
co-plaintiff and is arrayed as a extending to whenever the last act

89. Rama Shankar Singh v.
Shyamalata Devi [1969]
90. Mukund Das Raja Bhagwan Dass
& Sons v. State Bank of
Hyderabad [1970]
91. Saradamani Kandappan v. S
Rajalakshmi [2011]
92. Welspun Specialty Solutions ltd.
v. ONGC [2021]
proforma defendant – “where 2 ends if last act started before
parties contract with a 3rd party, expiry – A kept on using the
a suit by one of the joint theatre even after the last play – R
promisees making the other as sued A for declaration that R and
co-defendant is maintainable D3 were entitled to exclusive use
even if the plaintiff does not & enjoyment of that theatre – D3
prove that the other joint refused to become a co-plaintiff,
promisee has refused to join him became a pro forma defendant – A
as a co-plaintiff.” claimed that suit by just one
partner was not maintainable –
court held that R can bring
action & is entitled to
compensation from A
[s 43] ANY joint promisor may P [along w/ other proprietors]
be compelled to perform, leased forest rights of an area to
JOINTLY & SEVERALLY D1-2 for 9 years – P sued D1-2 for
liable – [s 42] “…after the death P’s share of rent – D2 died and his
of any of them, his representative heirs D2 & 2a took place - court
jointly with the survivor or held that D1-2-2a were JOINTLY
survivors…” and SEVERALLY liable to pay P
Same as Rama Shankar, A was a joint family business ran
JOINTLY & SEVERALLY by Mukund [deceased] and his
LIABLE sons [D2-D5] – D2 as the head
manager, withdrew 1lac from bank
on D6’s guarantee – Bank sued A
and D2-D5 & D6
[s 52] ORDER of performance of P contracted w. D for purchasing
reciprocal promises, if NO mortgaged properties – execution
express mention of order in the of the deed depended on P getting
contract, USUAL MARKET satisfied regarding the title to the
PRACTICE prevails – order of land - terms set a specific date for
clauses is not equal to order of payment by P, failing which D can
performance - [s 54] DEFAULT cancel the deed – terms stated that
in reciprocal promises, P cannot if P finds the title unsatisfactory, D
claim that D should produce the is obliged to pay back entire
original papers and satisfy her title, money received – P failed to make
or claim execution of the sale deed, entire payment within the fixed
unless and until P paid entire time, D cancelled deed – D alleged
consideration within the fixed time, that P satisfied herself of the title
which would enable D to repay the of property at the time of entering
loans and obtain release of the the agreement, they were not
original title deeds – [s 53] will obliged to give her original papers
also apply here as the act of of property till the deed was
defaulting by P prevented executed – P denied the allegation
performance of D’s promise, & sued D for specific performance
making the contract voidable from – court ruled in the favour of D
D’s side
Whether time is of essence in a P won D’s tender for seamless
contract is has to be culled out steel – D issued 4 orders to P –
from the reading of the entire essence of time & date of delivery

93. Bhudar Chandra v. Betts [1915]
94. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar [1987]
95. Nathulal v. Phoolchand [1970]
contract as well as the explicitly mentioned, order wont
surrounding circumstances, be accepted at a later than
merely an explicit clause is NOT specified date – clauses in contract
sufficient, contracts containing stipulating liquidated damages if
provision for extensions or obligations unfulfilled – several
default penalty would render the delays by P, D gave extensions –
clauses imbuing time as essence of D deducted liquidated damages
the contract ineffective - general from bills submitted by P – P
rule is that promisor is bound to initiated arbitration – award in
complete obligation by specified favour of P, tribunal said time
date, unless promisee’s acts render NOT of essence in contract, no
promisor unable to oblige, no breach of contract so no
liquidated damages for promisee in liquidated damages, determined
this case [general rules can be actual damages based on
amended with express terms in evidence – SC upheld the award
contract]
[s 55] failure to perform at fixed P & D formed a contract under
time if time of essence (or not) which D would deliver his
If a party has to ask for extension, elephant to P on 1st Oct – D asked
it proves that time is of essence in extension till 6th Oct, delivered on
the contract 11th Oct – P refused to accept
elephant on 11th, filed suit for
recovery of damages $2k – court
held that time was of essence in
the contract, P can seek damages,
but court reduced the quantum of
damages down from $2k
Agreements with provisions A hired R for constructing its staff
regarding ‘time-extensions and quarters – A wrote 29 letters about
compensation for delay’ are NOT timely completion of the work – 4
considered to have time as an month delay by R – A sent show-
essence – to make time essence of cause notice to R, no satisfactory
contract, the contract should NOT reply, contract rescinded – R
be rescinded, rather the other party initiated arbitration & claimed
should be directed to complete compensation – award given in
work within a specified time period R’s favour, held that time NOT of
essence in this contract, held the
decision of recession wrong
[s 54] default of promise which A agreed to sell his factory and its
should be first performed – land to R – land in question was
When sequence/order in which under A’s brother’s name in
promises are to be performed are revenue records - R paid partly on
NOT mentioned expressly, court execution of the agreement and
can assess the same by taking into promised to pay balance on a fixed
consideration the nature of a sale date – R didn’t pay on the fixed
transaction date – A rescinded contract and
sued R – R stated that he made
arrangements to pay but A failed
to fulfil his part of the promise by
not deleting his bro’s name from

96. China Cotton Exporters v. B R
Cottonmills [1961]
97. Gomathinayagam Pillai v.
Pallaniswami Nadar [1967]
98. Bowes v. Shand [1877]
In commercial agreements time is
ordinarily of essence to the
contract -
[s 55] time as essence – Intention
to make time as essence to the
contract may be evidenced by
either express stipulations OR by
circumstances sufficiently strong
to displace ordinary presumption
of time not being of essence to the
contract – for awarding specific
performance, readiness &
willingness to perform must be
CONTINUOUSLY proved from
the date of agreement to date of
hearing
Stipulations as to the time of
shipment form part of the
description of the goods -
records – court held that as long
as A did not fulfil his part of the
contract R cannot be called upon
to pay the balance
A made contract with its Italian
supplier for cotton fibre – A made
2 contracts with R for sale of those
cotton fibre, clause mentioned that
due to the contract being subject to
import licence, shipment date isn’t
guaranteed – A delivered against
first contract to R, but only partly
fulfilled the 2nd contract [10k lbs
instead of 40k] – R sued for
damages for breach of contract –
A contended that it was not liable
as date of shipment was not
guaranteed, unable to fulfil as
supplier failed to deliver – court
held A liable for breach of
contract as date of shipment was
guaranteed as the clause only
covered delay in obtaining import
licence [which there was none]
A agreed to sell its plot of land to
R – contract had a default clause
imposing penalty for failure to
complete sale on agreed date – R
didn’t pay on time - A wrote to R
that time was of essence thus
agreement cancelled – A selling
land to someone else - R paid a
month late, asked A to execute
deed – A didn’t execute deed, R
sued – court held that time was
NOT of essence, but specific
performance NOT granted to R
as he couldn’t establish his
continuous willingness to
perform
P & D made a contract for sale of
madras rice – terms stated goods
were to be shipped during Mar-
Apr – Most rice was put on board
in Feb, and rest in Mar - D rejected
the goods – P brought action
against D – court held that D was
entitled to reject goods as
stipulations as to the time of
shipment were breached
99. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram
Bangur and Co. [1954] [J. BK
Mukherjea]
100 Energy Watchdog v. Central
. Electricity Regulatory [2017]
Indian Law on FRUSTRATION
[or Supervening Impossibility] [s
56] is a positive law, does NOT
leave matter to be determined by
the intention of the parties, duty
of the court to decide if contract
ended by frustration – when the
whole purpose or basis of
contract is frustrated by the
intrusion or occurrence of an
unexpected event beyond the
contemplation of the parties, it is
the duty of the court to give relief
and hold the contract frustrated - if
court thinks that terms of contract
imply/express that happening of an
event would discharge the contract,
it would come under [s 32] NOT
under frustration – English
principles only have persuasive
value – [s 56] does NOT refer to
performance of an act becoming a
literal impossibility but rather it
becoming impracticable &
useless from POV of the objects &
purpose which the parties had in
view
Force Majeure clause under [s
32] not [s 56] – [s 56] not literal
impossibility but impractical &
useless – Force Majeure clauses
are to be narrowly construed
R owned large land – started a
land-development scheme for
residential purposes, divided land
into diff plots – entered into an
agreement with various purchasers
for plots – R undertook job of
constructing roads & drains, imp
for residential purposes - plots to
be given after construction &
balance payment – A's to-be plot
was requisitioned for military
purposes – R decided to treat the
agreement cancelled – gave A the
option of taking the payment back
or paying balance & R would
continue work post-war – A
refused both options & sued R –
court held that the contract had
not become impossible under [s
56] as requisition did not make
the contract illegal, requisition
did not affect the fundamental
basis of the contract as the
requisition-induced delay was
temporary in nature and there
was no time limit fixed in the
contract
Big power project for supplying
power to few states – tariff for sale
of power decided via bidding –
choice b/w escalable & non-
escalable tariff – Tata Adani chose
non-escalable as the only thing
requiring escalable tariff was inc.
in fuel/coal price, and it was fixed
or predictable by long term power
supply agreements in Indonesia –
power producers started selling at
lowest tariffs after executing
Power Purchase Agreements w/
state power procurers – 2 yrs later,
new Indonesian regulations led to
unexpected change in fuel prices –
price under PPAs drastically went
up, making current tariffs unviable
– Adani filed application in CERC
for frustration of contract – CERC
didn’t accept prayer – appeal –
court held that frustration is
inapplicable as PPA’s
 fundamental basis is unaltered as
it nowhere stated that fuel is to be
procured only from Indonesia &
at a particular price [only talk
about availability of fuel] – adani
knowingly took the risk of fuel
price-change when chose non-
escalable tariff – court held the
force majeure also not attracted
101 Naihati Jute Mills ltd. v. Hyaliram A contract is NOT frustrated A entered into a contract with R to
. Jagannath merely because the circumstances buy Pakistan-imported jute –
in which it was made are altered – agreement was in standard form
a party is NOT absolved from prescribed by A – contained a
performance just because its clause exempting from liability if
performance has become onerous delay arose from conditions such
on account of an unforeseen turn of as war - A was required to get
events – If obligation present under import licence under the contract,
the contract is an ABSOLUTE couldn’t get after multiple
obligation the defence of applications – R sued for damages
impossibility of performance or the for A being unable to furnish – A
court interpreting such an implied contended that performance
term is not available became impossible bcz of change
in govt policy prohibiting import
of Pakistani jute - tribunal held A
liable – appeal – HC held contract
void under [s 56] – appeal – SC
held that A was aware of the
situation bcz of govt circulars
hence performance didn’t
become impossible bcz of
unforeseeable change in govt
policy but A’s personal
disqualification [authorities
refused licence as A already had 2
months stock at the time]
102 Scarf v. Jardine [1882] NOVATION – discharge of a D & R partners in a firm running
. contract by agreement to substitute business – P retired and replaced
or replace w/ a new contract – by B – no public or official notice
novation of a contract may either of this change to customers or
hold the same parties & a change suppliers – P, an old supplier,
of contract OR different parties supplied ordered goods without
& the same contract [in current knowledge of this change – D only
case, D entered into an implied got aware of this change when he
agreement with the new company decided to sue the company for not
by suing them, hence entering the paying his dues – D sued the new
same contract w/ different parties company – company went
of which P is not a party, D losing bankrupt – D sued P – court held
his right to sue P or the older firm that P was not liable as D lost his
right to sue P when sued the new
company
103 State of West Bengal v. B K
. Mondal & Sons [1962]
[s 70] NON-GRATUITOUS act –
claim under [s 70] not based on
any subsisting contract but on the
basis that something was done or
delivered to another who
voluntarily accepted it even though
he had the option to refuse – claim
under [s 70] is not the footing that
there has been no contract, parties
conduct has created a legal
relationship resembling that
arising out of a contract
R’s a firm which does construction
work for provincial govt – R did
additional construction work on
provincial officer’s request, didn’t
get paid for it – R sued A [govt] on
the basis of contract & [s 70] – A
said that there is no valid contract
& s 70 does not apply – court held
that although there was no
contract, claim is justified under
[s 70]

105 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Unjust Benefit/Enrichment, falls
. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour under quasi-contracts or restitution
ltd. [1942] – Payment under a mistake or fact
– prepayment on the account of
‘money to paid as consideration
for performance of a contract’
which becomes abortive & is not
performed so that money never
becomes due – there was no
intention to enrich the payee – “ the
claim for repayment is NOT based
on the frustration-dissolved
contract BUT on the fact that D
has received the money & has on
the events which have supervened
no right to keep it
106 Mahabir Kishore v. State of M P [s 72] Refund of money paid
. [1990] under mistake or coercion
Unjust Enrichment – 1 party
enriched by receipt of a benefit,
enrichment is at the expense of the
other party, retention of the
enrichment is unjust [this justifies
restitution]
107 Sumpter v. Hedges [1898] Contractual price cannot be
. recovered in a lump sum contract,
neither in whole nor in part, until
the contractual work is complete –
cannot recover on basis of
Quantum Meruit unless a new
contract can be inferred to pay for
the work already done
108 Simpson v. London & North Compensated for loss that was
P [Poland based Co.] paid an
advance of $1k to D [a UK based
Co.] for machines to be delivered
4 months later – 2 months later,
Poland was invaded by Nazis &
UK declared war on Germany – P
requested D to refund the advance
as it was evident that the contract
cannot be executed now – D
refused – P sued D – court held
that P is entitled to the refund as
there was a failure of
consideration [P did not receive
any of the machines]
A, a firm, got multiple contracts
from the govt for liquor for year
1959-61 – govt charged 7.5% over
the auction fee as fuel cess – A
paid $54k extra for the above
contracts in cess – In ’62 A got
aware of two ’59 & ’60 MP HC
judgements which made the 7.5%
cess by the govt illegal – filed a
suit for refund of that $54k – court
held that A was entitled to refund
P had a contract to build 2 houses
and stables for D for $560 – P
completed part-work valued $333,
and abandoned the contract – D
completed the work using material
left by P – P sued D for
outstanding money – court held
that P was NOT entitled to
payment
P [a manufacturer] delivered his
. Western Railway Co. [1876]
109 Hobbs v. L&SE Ry [1875]
. and Mental Distress – “for the
110 Malik v. Bank of Credit &
. Commerce Intl. SA [1998]
111 Hochster v. De La Tour [1853]
. promise for future conduct, a party with him in Europe – a month
foreseeable as a result of samples to D to be exhibited at a
defendant’s actions – special New Castle agri. Exhibition, “must
circumstances communicated reach NC on Monday” – D’s
negligence, samples reach after
exhibition is over – P claimed
damages from D for loss of profit
in exhibition – court held D
liable, as D had knowledge of the
special circumstances & must’ve
contemplated that a delay will
result in such a loss
Compensation for Inconvenience Train company breached contract
and dropped P & his wife at a
mere inconvenience…without real different station/place - P had no
physical inconvenience resulting, place to stay and fell sick due to a
you cannot recover damages. That drizzle that night – P’s wife was
is purely sentimental, and NOT a also very tired as she had to walk a
case where inconvenience applies” long way home – court awarded P
damages for inconvenience to
walk 4-5miles home w/ young
children on a drizzling night
[although wife’s catching of a cold
was found a bit too remote]
Loss of REPUTATION – Mutual P was employed in bank D – bank
trust & confidence is an implied D went insolvent due to massive
term in employment contracts, can fraud, terrorist connections,
be modified or excluded by money-laundering & other global
parties though – employee need not criminal activities – P lost his job
be aware of the breach WHILE & could not find a new job – sued
the employee-employer D for his loss of job prospects
relationship subsisted – employer from damages reputation - argued
who breaches MT&C is liable if he there was an implied term in the
causes continuing financial loss employment contract that nothing
which was reasonable would be done calculated to
foreseeable – Employers must take undermine mutual trust &
care not to damage their confidence– court held that the
employees future job prospects term of mutual trust &
by harsh and oppressive behaviour confidence would be implied into
or by any other form of conduct the contract as a necessary
which is unacceptable today as incident of the employment
falling below the standards set by relation, this was a term implied
the implied MT&C term by law
When a contract provides a D hired P as a courier & travel
refusal to perform the agreement, before date of performance, D
thus renouncing contract, becomes informed P that they no longer
liable for breach of contract – a require his services – P sued D for
contract for future conduct anticipatory breach of contract – D
constitutes an implied promise argued that P cannot bring action
that, in the meantime, neither party before the date of performance –

112 AKAS Jamal v. Moola Dawood
. Sons & Co. [1915]
113 Karsandas H Thacker v. Saran
. Engineering Co. Ltd. [1965]
114 Frost v. Knight [1872]
. CONTINGENT CONTRACT –
will prejudice the performance of
that promise
The loss is to be found at date of
the breach, if at that date P did
something that mitigated the
damage, D is entitled to benefit
from it – If the seller does not sell offered on this date – those shares
the goods after the breach and his
loss is aggravated by the falling
market, then he CANNOT recover later P sold those shares in Feb
the ENHANCED LOSS
[s 73] When a party breaches a
contract, the other party is entitled for supply of 200 tonnes of iron
to compensation for any loss
resulting from the damage
caused to him that naturally
arose in the ordinary course of
business BECAUSE OF THE
BREACH OR that the parties
KNEW would LIKELY
RESULT FROM THE BREACH Firm bought iron scrap in open
WHEN THEY MADE THE
CONTRACT
ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF D promised P that upon her
aggrieved party can bring action
either immediately or wait for the
performance
court disagreed as renunciation
by D immediately dissolved P’s
obligation to perform thus
leaving no reason to wait till date
of performance & held D liable
for breach of contract
P & D had an agreement under
which D would buy 23k shares
from P on 30th Dec – D refused to
buy those shares when they were
would’ve sold for $100k less than
the contract price on that day –
when market was rising and made
$70k less than contract price – P
sued D for breach of contract and
sought damages of $100k – D
argued only liable for $70k –
court held D liable for $100k as
even though P’s pocket was
enriched in Feb, P’s loss at the
time of the breach was unaffected
A entered into a contract with R
scraps – R did not deliver the scrap
iron & expressed his inability to
comply w/ contract in a letter – In
meantime, A signed a contract
with another firm for supplying
them 200 tonnes iron scrap, which
couldn’t deliver because R failed –
market made A recompense the
difference b/w the amount the firm
had to pay and the amount it’d
have paid A under the contract – A
sued R for breach, sought damages
for the losses suffered by him bcz
of the breach – court held that R
was NOT liable under [s 73] as R
was not informed at the time of
the contract that A was buying
the article for delivery to 3rd party
father’s death he will marry her –
however, D broke off the
engagement while her father was
alive – w/o waiting for her father’s
death P immediately sued D for

115 Victoria Laundry v. Newman REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE -
. Industries ltd. [1949] Damages would be awarded for
losses which could reasonably
have been expected to be lost
116 Hadley v. Baxendale [1854] REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE -
. a party could only successfully
claim for losses stemming from
breach of contract where the loss
is reasonably viewed to have
resulted naturally from the
breach, OR where the fact such
losses would result from breach
ought reasonably have been
contemplated of by the parties
when the contract was formed
117 Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal Restitutio In Integrum, “the
. [1951] party who has suffered the loss
should be placed in the same
position, as far as compensation in
money can do it, as if the party in
breach had performed his contract
or fulfilled his duty” - the party in
breach must compensate direct
consequences of the breach, not
breach of promise of marriage –
court held that the case falls
within the principle of Hochester
v. De La Tour, hence the option is
with the aggrieved party [P] to
sue immediately or wait for the
performance
P ordered a boiler from D in
contemplation of some lucrative
dyeing contracts – D was aware of
nature of P’s business & that the
boiler was intended to be put to
use immediately – D delayed the
order by 5 months – P sued D,
seeking damages for loss of profit
for the company – D argued that
the urgency of boiler was a spl.
circumstance & D should’ve been
explicitly informed – court held
that P was entitled to damages for
loss of profit suffered due to the
delay – knowing nature of P’s
business, D should’ve been able
to foresee the loss of profits that
could result from the delay
P owned a mill – the mill had a
broken crankshaft – P hired D to
deliver the broken crankshaft to an
engineering firm immediately for
repaid & then transport it back – D
promised to deliver it next day – D
delivered a week later – P sued D
seeking damages for loss of profit
during the unexpected week-long
closure - D contended that he was
unaware that the firm was
inoperable w/o the crankshaft –
court held that D was not liable
as he did not reasonably foresee
the consequences of the delay &
P had not informed him of them
On D’s instructions his agent [P]
ordered goods & stored them in
govt. godowns, requiring permit to
supply them to D – fire in godown
burned all goods – few months
later, state issued an explosion
ordinance which provided 50%
compensation for insured goods &
full comp. for uninsured goods - P
 loss or damage indirectly or got 50% compensation as the
remotely caused – minority goods were uninsured – P sued D
opinion in this case: to indemnify P from the other 50%
D's inability to recover goods’ of damages – it was found that P
value from govt did occur directly had agreed to insure the goods and
or naturally in the usual course of even charged D but still didn’t
things from P’s breach, but from insure – D argued that he was
independent & disconnected events allowed to counter claim for value
such as ordinance – even if P of goods damages due to P’s
insured goods, explosion would’ve neglect/breach of duty – court
naturally not been covered in the held that P must pay damages
insurance, it was only when the Restitutio In Integrum, as loss to
ordinance was promulgated that D D rose directly from P’s breach of
would’ve became entitled to the duty to insure the goods – P’s
whole value of the goods had they liability arises from breach of duty
been insured, the consequence not the ordinance – ordinance did
which could’ve never not create new liability but it only
NATURALLY arose in DUE quantified damages such that P’s
COURSE OF THINGS failure to insure is measured on a
new basis [fact that it didn’t exist
at time of explosion & couldn’t
have been contemplated by
contracting parties is irrelevant
for deciding liability]
118 Reg. Glass Pty ltd. v. Rivers
. Locking System ltd. [1968]
119 Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das Legal Injury
. [1963]
120
.
121
.
122
.
123
.
124
.
125
.
126
.