LAW OF CONTRACT

Part – C: Salved answers

Feb/March 2013

1. B gave his acceptance to an offer given by A through electronic medium. When is the
communication of acceptance is said to be complete?
Facts of the case
B gave his acceptance to an offer given by A through electronic medium
Answer
As per section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, when a person to whom the proposal
is made signifies/indicates his assent/ acceptance there to, the proposal is said to be
accepted. In this case B gave his acceptance to an offer given by A through electronic
medium, the momentum acceptance given communication of acceptance to an offer is
completed.

2. A promises to pay a time barred debt to B. Can it be a good consideration to enforce

A’s promise.
Facts of the case
A promises to pay a time barred debt to B
Answer
As per section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act a promise to pay a time barred debt-
a) Should be in writing; b) Should also be signed by the promisor or His agent or
specially authorised in that behalf.
In the case of Debi Prasad Vs Bhagwati Prasad AIR1943 All 63 it was held that “when
the acknowledgement of the time barred debt was coupled with an agreement to pay
interest, it could not be regarded as a mere acknowledgement and it should be
regarded as an agreement with a promise to pay the debt within the meaning of
Section 25(3).
Hence, if an agreement is made for payment of time barred debt as required under
section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act it can be a good consideration.

3. A postman wrongly delivered a parcel to Y which is addressed to Z. Can y appropriate

the parcel? What is his liability?
Facts of the case
A postman wrongly delivered a parcel to Y which is addressed to Z
Answer
A contract is the result of an agreement enforceable by law. Strictly speaking it comes
into existence from the free will of the parties. They make offer and accept it,
knowing fully well that legal relationship will come into existence. BUT in some cases,
there is no intention on the part of the parties to enter into contractual relationship
but obligations
 resembling those created by a contract are imposed by law. Such obligations, for want
of a better name, are called Quasi contracts in English Common Law. In a quasi-
contract there is no actual contract arising from the meeting of minds, but the law
attributes to a particular situation consequence, which is similar to those of contract.
As per section 70 of the Indian Contract Act “where a person lawfully does anything
for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously,
and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make
compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or
delivered.”
As per the said statute it is an obligatory contract to Y to handover the parcel
intended to Z.

4. A promises to buy a bike to his son, if B secures a first class in the exams. Can B file
a suit for breach of promise if A fails to fulfil his promise?
Facts of the case
A promises to buy a bike to his son, if B secures a first class in the exams
Answer
In this instant case promise made by A to his son B for purchase of bike to him is a
social agreement so as to secure a first class in the exams by B. social agreements are
not enforceable, hence B can not initiate legal actions against A.

March/April 2014
5. A minor entered into a contract with B a money lender and mortgaged his house for
Rs.20,000 by misrepresenting himself as a major. After knowing the fact that A is a
minor, B wants to cancel the contract and recover the money advanced to A. Advise B.
Facts of the case
A minor entered into a contract with B a money lender and mortgaged his house for
Rs.20,000 by misrepresenting himself as a major. After knowing the fact that A is a
minor, B wants to cancel the contract and recover the money advanced to A
Answer
As per provisions of section 10 read with section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, a
minor is incompetent to enter contract.
In this instant case A is a minor and hence he is not competent to contract.
In the case of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539 the privy council
held that the mortgage (executed by the minor) was void and therefore, it was
cancelled. Further the money lender request for the repayment of the amount
advanced to the minor as part of consideration for the mortgage was also not
accepted.
As per statute and in terms of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539 the
contract between A and B is void and hence question of cancellation of contract does
not arise and B has no right to recover the money from A.
6. A singer promised to perform a contract in B’s theatre. But, one day before the
performance A met an accident which made her fail to perform the promise. B wants
to claim damages against A for breach of Contract. Decide.
Facts of the case
A singer promised to perform a contract in B’s theatre. But, one day before the
performance A met an accident which made her fail to perform the promise.
Answer
Doctrine of Frustration
“Lexnon cogitad imposibilia” Latin Maxim “The law does not compel a man to do that,
what he cannot possibly perform”. As per provisions of section 56 of Indian Contract
Act an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.
In this instant case one day before the performance A met an accident which made
her fail to perform the promise, the accident met by A made the contract impossible
and hence void and A has not intentionally breached the contract and the accident has
made the contract as impossible and void. Hence B’ claim for damages does not stand
before the law.

7. X finds a purse on the road, lost by Y. What is liability of X towards Y?

Facts of the case
X finds a purse on the road, lost by Y.
Answer
As per provisions of section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, a person who finds goods
belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same
responsibility as a bailee.
Section-71 contemplates quasi-contractual situation when a person finds goods
belonging to another and takes them into his custody. It brings the finder of goods
into legal relationship with the owner of the goods found.
If knowing, or having means of knowing the rightful owner, or without using reasonable
means to discover the owner, the finder of goods appropriates them to his own use,
he will be guilty of criminal misappropriation under section 403 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Hence Y is having liability to return the purse to X as soon he fins/discovers the owner
of the purse.

8. A promised to supply some fruits to B on 1st January 2013. But A on 20th December
expressed his inability to deliver the goods. What is the remedy available to B against
A.

Facts of the case

A promised to supply some fruits to B on 1st January 2013. But A on 20th December
expressed his inability to deliver the goods.
 Answer
As per provisions of section 39 of the Indian Contract Act, when a party to a contract
has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing his promise in its
entirety the promise may put an end to the contract unless he has signified, by words
or conduct, his acquiescence in its continuance.
Anticipatory Breach: The promise cannot require the promisor to perform the
promise till the time for performance arrives. But the promisor may intimate his
refusal or become disabled to perform the promise even before the due date. By doing
so he commits a breach of the contract even before the actual time for performance.
This is known as Anticipatory breach.
In this instant case, as per the promise made by A, he supposed to supply some fruits
to B on 1st January 2013, but on 2oth December itself B has informed his inability to
deliver the goods. Hence it is an anticipatory breach of contract and B can sue A for
breach of contract.
Feb/March 2015
9. X promises to drop a prosecution which he instituted against B as B had committed
extortion. However, B gives an understanding that he shall repay the money and things
which he took away through extortion. Examine the legal position of such an
agreement.
Facts of the case
X promises to drop a prosecution which he instituted against B as B had committed
extortion. However, B gives an understanding that he shall repay the money and things
which he took away through extortion.
Answer
Committing extortion is a crime, once the criminal proceedings were initiated by the
state on a written compliant made by the party, party has no right to withdraw his
compliant petition. Hence the promise made by X for dropping criminal prosecution
impossible to perform as such the law does not permits.

10. A proposes, by letter to sell his house to B at a certain price. B accepts to pay the
price by a letter sent by post. Explain the legal position and when acceptance is
complete?
Facts of the case
A proposes, by letter to sell his house to B at a certain price. B accepts to pay the
price by a letter sent by post.
Answer
A has fulfilled the provisions of section 3 of Indian Contact Act by a letter of his
intention to sell his house to B at a certain Price. B has also accepted the proposal
to pay the price by a letter to A, here also the provisions of section 3 of Indian
Contact Act fulfilled. The momentum B addressed his acceptance letter the
acceptance id complete as required under section 3 of Indian Contact Act.
11. A promises B to sell his car for Rs. 1,50,000 on certain date. B agrees to pay the
price on receipt of the car. A refused to sell his car to B. Explain the future
consequences in the above agreement.
Facts of the case
A promises B to sell his car for Rs. 1,50,000 on certain date. B agrees to pay the
price on receipt of the car. A refused to sell his car to B.
Answer
A has fulfilled the provisions of section 3 of Indian Contact Act by promising to
sell his car for Rs. 1,50,000 on certain date to B. B has also accepted the proposal
to pay the price of the car on receipt of the car, here also the provisions of section
3 of Indian Contact Act fulfilled. Hence, once accepted the contract A has no right
to refuse to sell the car, which amounts Breach of Contract and B can initiate legal
proceedings for Breach of contract.

12. A pays B Rs.10,000 in consideration of B’s promise to marry C. A’s daughter C dies
before marriage. Explain the fate of B with suitable examples.
Facts of the case
A pays B Rs.10,000 in consideration of B’s promise to marry C. A’s daughter C dies
before marriage.
Answer
As per provisions of section 56 of Indian Contact Act discharge of contract on one
of the grounds of impossibility of Performance is death or incapacity for personal
service.
In this instant case B has promised to marry C to A (Daughter of A), but C has been
demised before the Marriage performance. Hence the contract has been
discharged.
The agreement is void, but B must repay Rs.1000 to A.

August/September 2015
13. A gives an offer to B for the sale of a house. Before B gives his acceptance A
revokes his offer. Examine the legal position.
Facts of the case
A gives an offer to B for the sale of a house. Before B gives his acceptance A
revokes his offer.
Answer
A has fulfilled the provisions of section 3 of Indian Contact Act by an offer his
intention to sell his house to B. at a certain Price. As per the provisions of section
5 of Indian Contact Act, a proposal may be revoked at any time before
communication of the acceptance is complete as against accepter, but not
afterwards.
In this instant case much before B’s acceptance, A has revoked his offer. Hence A
has acted legally correct.
14. A offer to sell his cycle to B for Rs.1,000. B offers to buy it for Rs.750. A refuse
to sell B. B than tells A “I accept yours offer and shall purchase the cycle for Rs.
1000”. Is a bound to sell the cycle to B for Rs.1000.
Facts of the case
A offer to sell his cycle to B for Rs.1,000. B offers to buy it for Rs.750. A refuses
to sell B. B than tells A “I accepts yours offer and shall purchase the cycle for Rs.
1000”. Answer
In the case Hyde V Wrench (1840)3 Beav.334, an offer was made by A to B for
the sale of a farm for 1000 pounds. B rejected this offer and said that he will pay
only 950 pounds to which A did not agree. Thereupon, B said that he was willing to
pay 1000 pounds to which also A did not agree. B sued A and contended that there
was a contract by which A was bound. It was held that B had once rejected A’s
offer by his counter offer to pay 950 pounds and this made the original offer to
lapse, and therefore, no contract had resulted in this case.
In terms of Hyde V Wrench (1840)3 Beav.334 that B had once rejected A’s offer
by his counter offer to pay Rs.750 and this made the original offer to lapse. Hence
A is not bound to sell his Cycle to B.

15. A is indebted to B and B to C. By mutual agreement B’s debt to C and A’s debt to
B is cancelled and C accepts A as his debtor. Explain the above situation with
suitable legal provisions.
Facts of the case
A is indebted to B and B to C. By mutual agreement B’s debt to C and A’s debt to B
is cancelled and C accepts A as his debtor.
Answer
 A is indebted to B
 B is indebted to C
 Mutual Agreement: B’s debt to C and A’s debt to B is cancelled
 C accepts A as his debtor
As per the provisions of section 62 of Indian Contact Act, if the parties to a
contract agree to substitute a new contract for it or to rescind or alter it the
original contract need not be performed.
In this instant case by fulfilling statutory provision s of Section 62 by Mutual
Agreement B’s debt to C and A’s debt to B are got cancelled and C accepted A as
his debtor with substitution of the original contract by a new contract and the same
is known as “Novatio” or Novation.

16. A promises B to pay Rs. 10,000 to C. A does not pay the amount to C. C can’t take
action against A. explain the legal implications.
Facts of the case
A promises B to pay Rs. 10,000 to C. A does not pay the amount to C.
 Answer
Here the contract is in between A & B for A to make payment of Rs.10,000 to C. As
per the provisions of section 73 of Indian Contact Act, only party to the contract
can sue for breach of Contract each other. In this case party to the contract are
A& B, hence C cannot take action against A.

Feb/March 2016
17. A offers through a letter to sell his car to B at for Rs.15,000. B at the same time
offers by a letter to buy A’s car for Rs15,000. The two letters cross each other in
post. Is there a concluded contract between A & B?
Facts of the case
A offers through a letter to sell his car to B at for Rs.15,000. B at the same time
offers by a letter to buy A’s car for Rs15,000. The two letters cross each other in
post.
Answer
In this instant case counter offers are made each other (A&B), simultaneous
offers, each being made in ignorance of the other.
In the case Tinn v Hoffmann (1873)291 T271, A wrote to B indicating his
willingness to sell 800 tons of iron at 69pounds per ton. On the same day, B also
wrote to A offering to buy 800 tons of iron at the same rate of 69 pounds per ton.
The two letters crossed each other in post. B brought an action against A for the
supply of iron contending that a valid contract had been created between the two
parties.
Rejecting the contention, it was held that there were only two cross offer and the
offer of neither of the parties having been accepted by the other, there was no
contract which could be enforced.
In the similar terms of Tinn v Hoffmann (1873)291 T271, there no contract was
concluded between A and B.

18. A promises a subscription of Rs. 5000 to Cyclone Relief Fund. He does not pay. Is
there any legal remedy against him?
Facts of the case
A premisses a subscription of Rs. 5000 to Cyclone Relief Fund
Answer
Cyclone Relief fund is of charity of public purpose and based on the promises of
the citizen, the Government spends the money on relief works out states exchequer
and also exemption provisions are there under Income Tax Act. State will have
limited resources to mitigate disaster relief works, therefore Cyclone Relief funds
are collected to meet such huge expenses. The relief works executed and under
execution may be shown as consideration.
Hence State can initiate action for failure of such promise of not paying
subscription.
19. A, an old man feeble sight, signed a bill of exchange thinking it was a guarantee.
There was no negligence on the part of A. is A liable?
Facts of the case
A, an old man feeble sight, signed a bill of exchange thinking it was a guarantee.
There was no negligence on the part of A
Answer
As per the provisions of section 22 of Indian Contact Act, a contract is not voidable
merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as
to a matter of fact.”
But in this instant case the old man having feeble sight was mis guided with material
misrepresentation of the facts as laid down in section 18 of the Indian Contact Act.
As such old man is having feeble sight, signed a bill of exchange thinking it was a
guarantee. It means other party has misused his feeble sight fraudulently and got
signature of old man on bill of exchange stating that it was a guarantee.
Hence, the old man can file a case on the party who has involved for fraudulent
actions under the provisions of 18 of the Indian contract Act.

20. A, B and C jointly promises to pay D Rs.3,000. A and B are untraceable. Can D compel
C to pay him in full?
Facts of the case
A, B and C jointly promises to pay D Rs.3,000. A and B are untraceable.
Answer
As per the provisions of section 43 of Indian Contact Act, when two or more
persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of express
agreement to the contrary, compel any one or more of such joint promisors to
perform the whole of the promise.
As per the terms of section 43 D is compelled to pay C in full amount.

March/April 2017
21. A invites B to dinner. B accepts the invitation, but does not turn up at the dinner.
Can A sue B for the loss he has suffered?
Facts of the case
A invites B to dinner. B accepts the invitation, but does not turn up at the dinner.
Answer
A’s Dinner invitation to B is a social agreement, which not enforceable by law. Hence
having accepted the invitation and for not turn up at the dinner cannot be sued.

22. X a minor borrowed from Y a sum of Rs.10,000, the payment of the loan guaranteed
by Z, who is a major. X refuses to pay. Can Y hold Z liable for the money?
Facts of the case
X a minor borrowed from Y a sum of Rs.10,000, the payment of the loan guaranteed
by Z, who is a major. X refuses to pay.
 Answer
As per provisions of section 10 read with section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, a
minor is incompetent to enter contract.
In this instant case X is a minor and hence he is not competent to contract.
In the case of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539 the privy council
held that the mortgage (executed by the minor) was void and therefore, it was
cancelled. Further the money lender request for the repayment of the amount
advanced to the minor as part of consideration for the mortgage was also not
accepted.
As per statute and in terms of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539
the contract between X and Y is void and hence question of cancellation of
contract does not arise and Y has no right to recover the money from X, but can
be recovered from Z, who has guaranteed the loan knowingly X is a minor in
fraudulent manner.

23. M, an old man of poor sight endorsed a bill of exchange of Rs.10,000 thinking it
was a guarantee. Is M liable to pay the amount?
Facts of the case
M, an old man of poor sight endorsed a bill of exchange of Rs.10,000 thinking it was
a guarantee.
Answer
As per the provisions of section 22 of Indian Contact Act, a contract is not voidable
merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as
to a matter of fact.”
But in this instant case the old man having feeble sight was mis guided with material
misrepresentation of the facts as laid down in section 18 of the Indian Contact Act.
As such old man is having feeble sight, signed a bill of exchange thinking it was a
guarantee. It means other party has misused his feeble sight fraudulently and got
signature of old man on bill of exchange stating that it was a guarantee.
Hence, the old man can file a case on the party who has involved for fraudulent
actions under the provisions of 18 of the Indian contract Act.

24. X agreed to let his hall to Y for some public entertainment on 1st August 2014. On
20th July 2014 the hall was destroyed by fire. Discuss the rights of X and Y.
Facts of the case
X agreed to let his hall to Y for some public entertainment on 1st August 2014. On
20th July 2014 the hall was destroyed by fire.
Answer
As per the provisions of section 56 of Indian Contact Act, an agreement to do an
act impossible in itself is void. A contract to do an act which, after the contract is
made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could
not prevent unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.
 In this instant case the very subject-matter relating to the contract disappears,
hence the contract is discharged by frustration. For application of this provision,
destruction of subject matter of the contract must be without any fault of the
parties to the contract. Therefore, the agreement made between X and Y becomes
void.
February 2019
25. Mr. Lal offers to donate Rs.50,000 to the orphanage. The orphanage accepts the
offer. Can the orphanage recover the amount through Court of law, if Mr. Lal fails
to pay the amount?
Facts of the case
Mr. Lal offers to donate Rs.50,000 to the orphanage. The orphanage accepts the
offer.
Answer
Donation to orphanage is for charity purpose and based on the promises of the
donations, orphanage will make their budget for welfare works. The orphanage will
generally perform their functions the donations and with limited resources and
donations made to such charity will also get exemption from Income Tax of the
doners.
Mr. Lal voluntarily offered to donate Rs.50,000 to the orphanage and the orphanage
accepts the offer, here an agreement has complete, but there is no consideration.
As such Mr. Lal voluntarily offered to donation and the same was accepted for
charity, if Mr. Lal fails to pay the amount, the orphanage can approach the court of
law, but the problem is that the agreement cannot be treated as contract unless
there is consideration. In this instant case welfare programmes of the orphanage
may be taken as consideration.

26. Mr. Pradeep hired a godown from Mr. Dinesh for a period of ten months and paid
the whole rent to him in advance. After four months, the godown was destroyed by
fire and Pradeep claimed a refund of a proportionate amount of the rent. Is the
claim valid?
Facts of the case
Mr. Pradeep hired a godown from Mr. Dinesh for a period of ten months and paid
the whole rent to him in advance. After four months, the godown was destroyed by
fire and Pradeep claimed a refund of a proportionate amount of the rent.
Answer
Mr. Pradeep has hired godown from Mr. Dinesh for a period of ten months and paid
the whole rent to him in advance. As per general lease agreement, the lease suppose
to handover the property back to leaser as per the conditions of the structure
prevailing at the time handing over the possession of the property. In this instant
case, after the four months of rental agreement (i.e., after taking possession of
rental property) the godown was destroyed by fire accident. Hence, Mr. Dinseh is
not liable to pay back proportionate rental advance, but Mr. Pradeep is liable to
 handover the property back after expiry of the rental period, as per the physical
condition of structure as it was at the time of entering lease agreement.

27. Ramu sells the good will of his shop to Shyam for Rs.20,000 and promises not to
carry on business for ever and anywhere in India. Is this agreement valid?
Facts of the case
Ramu sells the good will of his shop to Shyam for Rs.20,000 and promises not to
carry on business for ever and anywhere in India.
Answer
As per the provisions of section 27 of Indian Contact Act, every agreement by
which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business
of any kind, is to that extent void.
In this instant case promises not carry on business for ever and anywhere in India.
This condition is contrary to the provisions of section 27; hence the agreement is
void.

28. A is the owner and possessor of a flat in an apartment. B alleges that he is the
owner of the flat and requires A to deliver it to him. Discuss the remedies available
to A under the Specific Relief Act
Facts of the case
A is the owner and possessor of a flat in an apartment. B alleges that he is the
owner of the flat and requires A to deliver it to him.
Answer

IN this instant case A is the owner and possessor of a flat in an apartment and B
alleges that he is the owner of the flat and requires delivery it to hm. Section 5
and 6 of the Specific Relief Act provide methods for recovery of possession of the
certain specific immovable property. Section 5 provides that a person entitled to
the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner
prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As per the sections 5 & 6 Specific
Relief Act provides mechanism and method to recovery of possession of the certain
specific immovable property, when a person was dispossessed from the immovable
property. A is already in possession of the disputed property with title dead. Hence
there is no remedy for him, and B has to prove his title before the court of law for
dispossessing A from the flat.

August/September 2019
29. A is a minor, represents B that he is a major and barrows of Rs.1,00,000 from B
and deposits in a bank account subsequently. A becomes major. B sues for recover
of the amount. Decide.
 Facts of the case
A is a minor, represents B that he is a major and barrows of Rs.1,00,000 from B
and deposits in a bank account subsequently. A becomes major. B sues for recover
of the amount.
Answer
As per provisions of section 10 read with section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, a
minor is incompetent to enter contract.
In this instant case A is a minor and hence he is not competent to contract.
In the case of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539 the privy council
held that the mortgage (executed by the minor) was void and therefore, it was
cancelled. Further the money lender request for the repayment of the amount
advanced to the minor as part of consideration for the mortgage was also not
accepted.
As per statute and in terms of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539
the contract between A and B is void and B has no right to recover the money from
A even after A becomes Major.

30. D lived as apaying boarders with a family. He agreed with the members of the family
to share prize money of a newspaper competition. The entry sent by D won a prize
of $750. He refused to share the amount won. Can the members of the family
recovers their share?
Facts of the case
D lived as apaying boarders with a family. He agreed with the members of the family
to share prize money of a newspaper competition. The entry sent by D won a prize
of $750. He refused to share the amount won.
Answer
As per provisions of section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, agreement by way of
wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be
won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or
other uncertain event on which any wager is made.
In this instant case D agreed with the members of the family to share prize money
of a newspaper competition, if he won. Its a wager agreement and hence void and
the family members cannot recover the amount.

31. A and B Two Hindu brothers, decided the family property between them and agreed
at the time of partition that they should contribute a sum of Rs.10,000 in equal
shares and invest in the security of immovable property and pay the interests
towards the maintenance of their mother. Can the mother compels her sons to have
the actual amount invested a settled in her favour?
Facts of the case
A and B Two Hindu brothers, decided the family property between them and agreed
at the time of partition that they should contribute a sum of Rs.10,000 in equal
 shares and invest in the security of immovable property and pay the interests
towards the maintenance of their mother.
Answer
Asa per Hindu law, the property cannot be partitioned between two Brothers (A&B),
when their mother is alive, as per law the property has to be partitioned three equal
parts for A, B and for mother. Hence the mother can compel her sons to have equal
share, hence she can compel her sons to have actual amount invested a settled in
her favour.

32. X a physician practicing in New Delhi, took Y as assistant for three years during
which Y agreed not to practice of his own in New Delhi. At the end of year from
date of agreement with X, Y began his own independent practice while still in
service. Has X any legal remedy against Y.
Facts of the case
X a physician practicing in New Delhi, took Y as assistant for three years during
which Y agreed not to practice of his own in New Delhi. At the end of year from
date of agreement with X, Y began his own independent practice while still in
service.
Answer
Agreement between X and Y is that Y should assist for three years during which Y
agreed not to practice of his own in New Delhi. At the end of year from date of
agreement with X, Y began his own independent practice while still in service, its a
clear breach of contact. Hence X can initiate action on Y for breach of contract.

Feb/March 2020
33. Mr. Arun offers by a letter to sell his car to Mrs. Radha for Rs.80,000. Mrs. Radha
at the same time offers by a letter to buy Arun’s car for Rs.80,000. The two letters
cross each other in the post. Is there a concluded contract between Mr. Arun &
Mrs. Radha?
Facts of the case
Mr. Arun offers by a letter to sell his car to Mrs. Radha for Rs.80,000. Mrs. Radha
at the same time offers by a letter to buy Arun’s car for Rs.80,000. The two letters
cross each other in the post.
Answer
In this instant case counter offers are made each other (Mr. Arun and Mrs. Radha),
simultaneous offers, each being made in ignorance of the other.
In the case Tinn v Hoffmann (1873)291 T271, A wrote to B indicating his
willingness to sell 800 tons of iron at 69pounds per ton. On the same day, B also
wrote to A offering to buy 800 tons of iron at the same rate of 69 pounds per ton.
The two letters crossed each other in post. B brought an action against A for the
supply of iron contending that a valid contract had been created between the two
parties.
 Rejecting the contention, it was held that there were only two cross offer and the
offer of neither of the parties having been accepted by the other, there was no
contract which could be enforced.
In the similar terms of Tinn v Hoffmann (1873)291 T271, there was no contract
between Mr. Arun and Mrs. Radha concluded.

34. Mr. Balu tells his wife that he would commit suicide, if she did not transfer her
personal assets to him. She does so under this threat. Can the wife avoid the
contract?
Facts of the case
Mr. Balu tells his wife that he would commit suicide, if she did not transfer her
personal assets to him. She does so under this threat.
Answer
As per provisions of section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, the contract between
two parties shall be made with free consent. Transfer of Mr. Balu’s wife property
in his name is made with coercion i.e, under threat to commit suicide. As per
provisions of section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, contact made with coercion is
void. Hence the wife can avoid the contract.

35. X saves the property of Y from fire intending to do so gratuitously. Subsequently

he claims compensation from Y on the grounds that Y enjoyed the benefit of X
services. Will X succeed the case?
Facts of the case
X saves the property of Y from fire intending to do so gratuitously. Subsequently
he claims compensation from Y on the grounds that Y enjoyed the benefit of X
services.
Answer
As per provisions of section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, it is a promise to
compensate a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor.
The services have been rendered voluntarily and that, the services have been
rendered for the promisor.
In this instant case Y has not made any promise before rendering voluntary service
to X and subsequently he claims compensation from Y on the grounds that Y enjoyed
the benefit of X services, which contrary to the provisions of section 25 and hence
X will not succeed the case.

36. Mr. Rahim contract to sell a plot to Mr. Ganesh for Rs.2 Lakh. Mr. Rahim afterwards
conveys that plot for Rs.3 Lakh to Mr. Sudheer, who has notice of the earlier
contact. Can Mr. Ganesh file a suit for Specific performance of the contract against
Mr. Sudheer?
 Facts of the case
Mr. Rahim contract to sell a plot to Mr. Ganesh for Rs.2 Lakh. Mr. Rahim afterwards
conveys that plot for Rs.3 Lakh to Mr. Sudheer, who has notice of the earlier
contact.
Answer
In this instant case Mr. Rahim contract to sell a plot to Mr. Ganesh for Rs.2 Lakh,
but not conveyed the property to Mr. Ganesh, it’s only an agreement to sell.
Whereas Mr. Rahim afterwards conveys that plot for Rs.3 Lakh to Mr. Sudheer.
Though Mr. Sudheer, who has notice of the earlier contact Mr. Ganesh cannot file
a suit for Specific performance of the contract against Mr. Sudheer. But Mr.
Ganesh can file suite for breach of contract against Mr. Rahim only.

October/November 2020
37. Mr. Raju has agreed to sell his car to Mrs. Laxmi for Rs.80,000. However, the car
is burnt by fire accident before its delivery to Mrs. Laxmi. Now, Mrs. Laxmi has
filed a suit for breach of contract against Mr. Raju. Decide.
Facts of the case
Mr. Raju has agreed to sell his car to Mrs. Laxmi for Rs.80,000. However, the car
is burnt by fire accident before its delivery to Mrs. Laxmi.
Answer
As per provisions of section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract to do an act
which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event
which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes
impossible or unlawful.
As a general rule impossibility of performance of contract is not an excuse, but
where this impossibility is caused by the circumstances beyond the control of the
parties, the parties are discharged from further performance of the obligation
under the contract.
In this instant case after entering into contract by Mr. Raju with Mrs. Laxmi, the
car is burnt by fire accident before its delivery to Mrs. Laxmi. Therefore, it is
impossible to perform the contract and becomes void. Hence, Mrs. Laxmi will not
succeed the case.

38. Mr. X, a minor, reparents to Me. Y that he is a major and borrows Rs.20,000 by
executing a pronote. By the time the demands for repayment, Mr. X becomes a
major. X fails to pay the borrowed amount. Can Y file a suit for recovery of money
against X?
Facts of the case
Mr. X, a minor, reparents to Me. Y that he is a major and borrows Rs.20,000 by
executing a pronote. By the time the demands for repayment, Mr. X becomes a
major. X fails to pay the borrowed amount.
 Answer
As per provisions of section 10 read with section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, a
minor is incompetent to enter contract.
In this instant case A is a minor and hence he is not competent to contract.
In the case of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539 the privy council
held that the mortgage (executed by the minor) was void and therefore, it was
cancelled. Further the money lender request for the repayment of the amount
advanced to the minor as part of consideration for the mortgage was also not
accepted.
As per statute and in terms of Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)30 Cal 539
the contract between X and Y is void and Y has no right to recover the money from
X even after X becomes Major.

39. Anand promises Balu to drop a prosecution which he instituted against Balu for
robbery and Balu agreed to restore the value of things robbed. Is this agreement
enforceable?
Facts of the case
Anand promises Balu to drop a prosecution which he instituted against Balu for
robbery and Balu agreed to restore the value of things robbed.
Answer
Committing robbery is a crime, once the criminal proceedings were initiated by the
state on a written compliant made by the party, party has no right to withdraw his
compliant petition. Hence the promise made by Anand for dropping criminal
prosecution against Balu is impossible to perform as such the law does not permits
and the agreement is not enforceable as such it is illegal.

40. A is a trustee of land with powers to lease it for three years. He agrees with B to
lease the same for three years and renew the agreement after the expiring. Will
the agreement be specifically enforced?
Facts of the case
A is a trustee of land with powers to lease it for three years. He agrees with B to
lease the same for three years and renew the agreement after the expiring.
Answer
A is a trustee of land with powers to lease it for three years and beyond that he
has no power to lease or renew the lease period. Hence agreement made with B is
illegal and can not enforceable.