Continuous Assignment 1

Name – Sneyha Barman

Roll No – RQ2124A05
Registration No – 12110607
Section – Q2124
Course Title – Legal Aspects Of Business
Course Code – BSL201
Lecturer – Paras Mehak Khokhar
Declaration ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ
I hereby declare that this project work entitled
“Continuous Assignment – 1” has been prepared
by me under the guidance of Prof. Paras Mehak
Khokhar.
I also declare that this project is the outcome of
my own effort, that it has not been submitted to
any other university for the award of any
degree.

Sneyha
Consideration ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

Case: Meera transferred property in favour of

her son. But there was a stipulation in the deed
that her son should pay ₹300000 as an annuity
to his mother’s brother. Meera’s son executed
an agreement in favour of his mother’s brother
to pay the annuity. But he failed to pay the
annuity. Then Meera’s brother sued his sister’s
son to recover the annuity.

Issue: Meera’s son failed to pay the annuity to

his mother’s brother.

Relevant law: The relevance law that is

applicable here is Section 2(D) in the Indian
Contract Act 1872.
Analysis: As Section 2(D) of the Indian
Contract Act 1872 specifies, consideration can
be given by anyone on her behalf.
Similarly in this case, Meera is giving her
property to her son on behalf of her brother and
her son will be paying ₹300000 as an annuity to
his mother’s brother. So it is valid contract.
Although the plaintiff(Meera’s brother) was
stranger to the consideration but since he was a
party to the contract he could enforce the
promise to the promisor, since under law,
consideration may be given by the promise or
anyone on her behalf – vide Section 2(D) of
Indian Contract Act,1872.

Conclusion: This is a valid contract and Meera’s

son has to pay the annuity to his mother’s
brother as per the Section 2(D) of Indian
Contract Act, consideration can be given by
anyone on their behalf.
Capacity To Contract ㅤㅤㅤ

Case: Samuel invited Jack into his house for a

party and intoxicated him by mixing something
in his drink, and he took his signature on the
property papers. Later, when Jack gets to know
about this, he files a case against Samuel. Now
what are the remedies available for Jack?

Issue: Samuel forcefully taken Jack’s signature

on the property papers.

Relevant law: The relevance law that is

applicable here is Section 10 in the Indian
Contract Act 1872.

Analysis: As Section 10 of the Indian Contract

Act 1872 specifies, all agreements are contracts
if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration
and with a lawful object, and are not hereby
expressly declared to be void.
Similarly in this case when Jack signed the
property papers he was in the state of
intoxication, that time he doesn’t have the
capacity to form a contract. So the documents
signed by Jack is void because when he signed
the papers he was a person of unsound mind.

Conclusion: The contract is void because at that

time Jack was a person of unsound mind and he
doesn’t have the capacity to form any contract.