Q1) Amphan was born at 11:59 pm on 12 October 2004 and was raised by his aunt, Bulbul

Chachi, after his parents died. After his Business Law exam on 12 October 2022, Amphan
comes home to find that Bulbul Chachi has arranged a surprise birthday party. At 5:00 pm
Bulbul Chachi says, “Amphan, I love you so much! I’m going to give you half the shares in my
company, Bulbul Seed Corporation (Private) Limited as your birthday present.” Amphan
replies, “Thank you so much Bulbul Chachi, I can’t wait to finish at IBA and start working
with you!” Explain if an agreement enforceable by law has been created.
Ans1) Sections CA 2h,10,11,13,14.
It is unclear from the given information whether an agreement enforceable by law has been created
between Amphan and Bulbul Chachi.
To determine whether an agreement is enforceable by law, several factors must be considered, such
as the intention of the parties to create a legal relationship, the presence of a valid offer and
acceptance, and the presence of consideration.
In this case, it appears that Bulbul Chachi has made an offer to give Amphan half the shares in her
company as a birthday present. Amphan has accepted this offer by expressing his gratitude and
willingness to work with Bulbul Chachi in the future. However, it is not clear whether this offer and
acceptance has been made with the intention of creating a legal relationship, or whether there is any
consideration involved.
Additionally, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which governs the formation and enforceability of
contracts in India, requires that certain contracts must be in writing and registered in order to be
enforceable. It is not clear from the given information whether the agreement between Amphan and
Bulbul Chachi falls under any of these categories.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine definitively whether an agreement enforceable by law has
been created in this case without further information
Third, the agreement must be for a lawful object and must not be forbidden by law, or be of such a
nature that if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law. In the scenario you describe, it is
not clear whether Bulbul Chachi’s offer to give Amphan half the shares in her company is for a
lawful object and is not forbidden by law.

Q2) Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 requires the “free consent” of the parties to a
contract. Explain the concept of free consent, referring to relevant section numbers.
Ans 2) Section 13-19
Free consent is an essential element of a valid contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It means
that the parties to a contract must agree to the terms of the contract willingly and without any
coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence.
Section 13 of the Act defines free consent as consent that is not obtained by coercion, undue
influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. Section 14 of the Act further explains the different
ways in which consent can be vitiated, such as by coercion, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentation, or mistake.
Coercion, as defined in Section 15 of the Act, is the use of force or threat to compel someone to enter
into a contract. Undue influence, as defined in Section 16 of the Act, is the use of a position of power
or trust to induce someone to enter into a contract. Fraud, as defined in Section 17 of the Act, is the
intentional misrepresentation of facts with the intention of inducing someone to enter into a contract.
Misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18 of the Act, is the unintentional misrepresentation of facts
with the same effect. Mistake, as defined in Section 20 of the Act, is a misunderstanding of facts by
one or both parties to a contract.
In order for consent to be considered free, it must not have been obtained through any of these
means. If any of these elements are present, the consent is considered to be not free, and the contract
may be considered void or voidable at the option of the party whose consent was not free.

Q3) Alu visits Buri’s mobile shop in Karachi. When she points out a new iPhone 14 Pro Max,
Buri informs her that the price of the phone is Rs. 555,555. Alu tries to negotiate the price
down, but is informed that all prices are fixed. Alu then pulls out a used Samsung Galaxy A01,
and Buri says that he is willing to part with the iPhone for Rs. 550,000 and the used Samsung
phone. Saying “I can’t believe I’m doing this”, Alu counts out Rs. 550,000 and hands it over to
Buri along with the used Samsung phone. The receipt lists the price of the new phone at Rs.
555,555, with the following lines below it: “Less: Used Samsung Galaxy A01 Rs. 5,555” and
“Net Amount Received: Rs. 550,000”. Analyze this transaction under relevant provisions of the
Contract Act, 1872 and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Ans 3)Contract Act 2h,12,13-19. Sale of Goods Act 2(10),4,6,15.
In the scenario you describe, Alu visits Buri's mobile shop in Karachi and is interested in purchasing
a new iPhone 14 Pro Max. When she points out the phone, Buri informs her that the price is fixed at
Rs. 555,555. Alu tries to negotiate the price down, but is unsuccessful. She then offers to trade her
used Samsung Galaxy A01 for the iPhone, and Buri agrees to the trade for a price of Rs. 550,000.
This transaction can be analyzed under the Contract Act, 1872 and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Under the Contract Act, 1872, a contract is defined as an agreement enforceable by law. In order for
a contract to be enforceable by law, it must be made by two or more parties who are capable of
entering into a contract, must be made with the free consent of the parties, and must be for a lawful
object and not forbidden by law.
In the scenario you describe, it is likely that a contract was formed between Alu and Buri for the sale
of the iPhone 14 Pro Max. Both parties were capable of entering into a contract, as they were both of
sound mind and not disqualified from contracting by any law. The parties gave their free consent to
the contract, as there was no evidence of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or
mistake.
The object of the contract, the sale of the iPhone 14 Pro Max, was also lawful and not forbidden by
law. The parties agreed on a price for the iPhone, and Alu paid that price in exchange for the phone.
This satisfies the requirements for a contract under the Contract Act, 1872.
Additionally, this transaction can be analyzed under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which sets out
specific rules for contracts for the sale of goods. Under the Act, a contract of sale is defined as a
contract where the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the ownership of goods to the buyer for a
price. In the scenario you describe, it is likely that a contract of sale was formed between Alu and
Buri for the sale of the iPhone 14 Pro Max.
The Act also sets out the rights and obligations of the parties in a contract of sale. For example,
under Section 4 of the Act, the seller is required to transfer the ownership of the goods to the buyer
and deliver the goods to the buyer. In the scenario you describe, Buri transferred the ownership of
the iPhone to Alu and delivered the phone to her.
Additionally, under Section 6 of the Act, the buyer is required to pay the price for the goods and take
delivery of the goods. In the scenario you describe, Alu paid the agreed-upon price for the iPhone
and took delivery of the phone from Buri. This satisfies the requirements for a contract of sale under
the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Overall, it is likely that a contract was formed between Alu and Buri for the sale of the iPhone 14 Pro
Max. This contract satisfies the requirements for a contract under the Contract Act, 1872, and for a
contract of sale under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930

Q4) Blas draws a bill of exchange on Agatha, naming Celia as the payee, and delivers it to
Celia. Celia indorses the bill in favor of Darby. The bill is stolen by Estelle, who negotiates it to
Frank. Analyze each step described above under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and
explain which parties Frank can enforce the bill against.
Ans 4) Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a bill of exchange is defined as an unconditional
order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the
person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum
certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.
In the scenario you describe, Blas, as the drawer of the bill, is the person who initially creates the bill
and orders the payment of a certain sum of money to the payee, Celia. By delivering the bill to Celia,
Blas transfers ownership of the bill to her, as described in Section 28 of the Act.
Celia, as the payee of the bill, has the right to collect the payment specified in the bill from the
drawee, Agatha, as described in Section 7 of the Act. Celia can also transfer ownership of the bill to
another person by indorsing it in their favor, as described in Section 15 of the Act. In this case, Celia
indorses the bill in favor of Darby, transferring ownership to him.
Darby, as the indorsee of the bill, has the same rights as the payee to collect the payment specified in
the bill from the drawee, Agatha, as described in Section 16(2) of the Act. However, Darby's rights
to the bill are subject to any defenses or claims that Agatha may have against the original payee,
Celia
Estelle, as the thief who steals the bill from Darby, does not have any lawful rights to the bill, as
described in 9 of the Act. However, if Estelle is able to successfully negotiate the bill with another
person, such as Frank, then Frank may acquire certain rights to the bill depending on the
circumstances of the negotiation, as described in Section 9 of the Act.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Frank may be able to enforce the bill against Agatha,
the drawee, if he took the bill in good faith and without knowledge of any defenses or claims that
Agatha may have against the original payee, Celia, as described in Section 35 of the Act. Frank may
also be able to enforce the bill against Darby, the indorsee, if Darby was negligent in protecting the
bill from theft by Estelle, as described in the Act.
It is important to note that the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the negotiation of a
bill of exchange are complex and can vary depending on the specific circumstances. It is advisable to
seek legal advice if you have any questions or concerns about the enforcement of a bill of exchange.

Q5) How do the rules in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the making, negotiation,
presentment and payment of cheques differ from other bills of exchange?
Ans 5) Sections Negotiable Sec 5,6,21,26,30,31,32,83,84,85,122A,123,124,130,131

Q6) Ashley is the managing director of Balita and wishes to buy office furniture. Having seen a
display in Cheneso’s showroom, she agrees to buy a quantity of desks and chairs. These are
delivered on 1 January in an unassembled state (as agreed by the parties). Due to business
pressures, it is not possible for Balita to have the furniture assembled until 1 February at
which time they discover that there are scratches on some of the desks and a leg is missing
from some of the chairs. Cheneso agrees to make repairs, but they never come to collect the
furniture. It is 1 April and Ashley is very angry. What advice can you give her about action
Balita might take under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
Ans 6) Sections 16,16A,17,41,19,20 ,55,57,59A(first opt)
Section Sec 16 part 1 & 2, Sec 12 a (implied condition ka breach hua hay according to section 16 and
sec 17 (2a). But ashley ne goods accept krliye the tou wo reject ni krskti ab she can only sue
Cheneso for breach of warranty. She can ask for damages and price kam krwaskti according to SEC
59. She can ask for specific performance according to sec 58
Ans) Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Ashley and Balita have certain rights and remedies if the
goods that were delivered by Cheneso are defective or do not conform to the contract. In this case, it
appears that the furniture was delivered in an unassembled state, as agreed by the parties, but that
there were scratches on some of the desks and a leg was missing from some of the chairs. This would
likely constitute a breach of contract on the part of Cheneso, as the furniture was not of
merchantable quality or fit for the purpose for which it was intended.
Based on the information provided, Ashley and Balita may have several potential options for action
under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. First, they may be entitled to reject the goods and demand a
refund of the purchase price. Under Section 16 of the act, a buyer has the right to reject the goods if
they are not of merchantable quality or fit for the purpose for which they were intended, and to
demand a refund of the purchase price. In order to reject the goods, Ashley and Balita would need to
notify Cheneso in writing within a reasonable time of discovering the defects.
Second, Ashley and Balita may be entitled to claim damages for the loss that they have suffered as a
result of the defective goods. Under Section 55 of the act, a buyer who has been deprived of the
whole or part of the goods that were sold to them is entitled to receive compensation for the price of
the goods, any expenses incurred in connection with the contract, and any loss of profit that was
directly caused by the breach. This means that Ashley and Balita may be entitled to recover the
purchase price of the furniture, any expenses that they incurred in connection with the contract (such
as the cost of assembling the furniture), and any loss of profit that was directly caused by the defects
in the furniture.
Third, Ashley and Balita may be entitled to claim damages for the cost of repairing the defects in the
furniture. Under Section 56 of the act, a buyer who has received defective goods or goods that do not
conform to the contract is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage that they suffer as
a result of the defect or non-conformity. This includes the cost of repairing the defects in the
furniture, so Ashley and Balita may be entitled to recover the cost of having the scratches repaired
and the missing leg replaced.
Overall, Ashley and Balita may have several potential options for action under the Sale of Goods
Act, 1930, depending on the specific circumstances of their case. They may wish to consult with a
lawyer to determine the best course of action in their situation.

Q7) According to Professor Alex of the Institute of Business and Law, “the Sale of Good Act,
1930 significantly expands the potential compensation that a party who suffers from a breach
of contract is entitled to under Sections 73-75 of the Contract Act, 1872”. Analyze this claim
based on relevant sections of the two laws.
Ans 7) nabiha answer (Explanation - This question is basically asking us to explore how the sale of
goods act expands on the contract act clauses 73 to 75. 73 to 75 essentially describe the conditions of
a breach, and what the parties are doing in case of a breach - it is very generalised. The sale of goods
act, on the other hand, is talking about a breach of contract during a sale, and what the buyer and
seller do in each case.) Clause number 73 of Contract Act is further expanded by clauses 55, 56, and
57 of the sale of goods act. 74 (CA) expanded by 61 (SOGA). 75 (CA) expanded by 60 (SOGA)
Ans7) AI
Professor Alex's claim that the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 expands the potential compensation that a
party who suffers from a breach of contract is entitled to under the Contract Act, 1872 is accurate.
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is a law in India that applies to the sale of goods and defines the rights
and duties of buyers and sellers in such transactions. The act supplements the provisions of the
Contract Act, 1872 with respect to the sale of goods, and provides additional remedies for parties
who suffer losses as a result of a breach of contract.
Under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, a party who suffers loss or damage as a result of a
breach of contract is entitled to receive compensation from the party who breached the contract. The
amount of compensation is limited to the actual loss or damage that was suffered, and does not
include any loss of profits or other consequential losses.
In contrast, under Section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a buyer who has been deprived of the
whole or part of the goods that were sold to them is entitled to receive compensation for the price of
the goods, any expenses incurred in connection with the contract, and any loss of profit that was
directly caused by the breach. This means that the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 expands the potential
compensation that a party who suffers from a breach of contract is entitled to, by allowing for the
recovery of loss of profits and other consequential losses in addition to the actual loss or damage
suffered.
Furthermore, under Section 56 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a buyer who has received defective
goods or goods that do not conform to the contract is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or
damage that they suffer as a result of the defect or non-conformity. This provides an additional
remedy for buyers who are not satisfied with the goods that they have received, and allows them to
recover any losses that they suffer as a result of the defect or non-conformity.
Overall, Professor Alex's claim is supported by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which
expand the potential compensation that a party who suffers from a breach of contract is entitled to
under the Contract Act, 1872.

Zainab Q7) SOG

10-2, 12, 13, 54-2-4, 56, 57, 59-b, 60, 61
The contract law 1872 has 3 sections which state the right of claiming for damages or the right to
receive compensation for any loss or damage under certain conditions.
Contract of Sales of Good has many sections which discuss the compensation to protect the rights of
buyer and seller simultaneously for a lawful contract to sale.
The rights of buyer are protected more prominently in the SoG act. It is important to notice that
buyer’s rights are taken into high consideration from the day of draftment of sale contract till even
after delivery while sellor’s rights come more into focus mainly after delivery of goods.
By section 12 and 13, the breach of conditions as express or implied (sec 16) in contract can give rise
to three right of options for the buyer wronged: the right for contract to be repudiated, waiver
condition, or lastly to treat it as breach of warranty and claim for damages. There’s another Section
(57) which protects buyer rights to sue seller for non-delivery. Sec 59 also protects right of buyer to
seller for damages for breach of warranty.
Section 54 and 56 mention seller’s rights after delivery of sale but before acceptance by buyer.
Section 10 holds both parties equally and justly liable to the other for breach. Section 61 also protects
both parties rights under and by the order of court.

Q.8 As per Section 3 of the Partnership Act, 1932, provisions of the Contract Act, 1872
inconsistent with the express provisions of the the Partnership Act, 1932 are not applicable to
firms. Explain the effects of the Partnership Act, 1932 on Section 27 and Chapter X of the
Contract Act, 1872.
Ans: Prior to 1932, the law of partnership was contained in Chapter XI of the Indian Contract Act,
1872. However, the Indian Contract Act did not contain provisions related to many aspects of the law
of partnership, which called for the enactment of a separate statute that compensates for such
inadequacies. Section 3 of the Partnership Act provides that the provisions in the Contract Act that
are not repealed and not inconsistent with the Partnership Act shall continue to be operative. Section
1(3) provides that the Act comes into force on October 1st, 1932. The Act applies prospectively and
not retrospectively. The same has been clarified under Section 74 of the Act which states that the Act
shall not affect what has been done before its commencement. Section 27 of the Indian Contract
Act,1872, Agreement in restraint of trade is void. All the agreements which restrain the person from
carrying any lawful profession, trade or business are void. However, Section 11 of the Partnership
Act states that the partners can restrain each other from carrying a business other than the firm. But
such restraint must contain in the partnership deed. Moreover, a minor cannot be a partner according
to the Indian Contract Act, section 11, however, under Partnership Act, he can be admitted to get the
benefit of all the partners gives the consent. His will share the profit equally but his liability will be
limited in case of loss of the firm, section 30, Partnership Act.

Q9) Diego wishes to be introduced into a partnership with Agila, Bagwis and Chito, which has
been carrying on an authentic beauty creams business since taking a Business Law course
together in 2019. Explain how the Partnership Act, 1932 addresses the issue of Diego becoming
a partner. Supposing that Diego is a minor, what effect would this have under the Partnership
Act, 1932?
Ans 9) There seem to be two angles to this one is firstly diego trying to become a partner, secondly
how would things change if Diego is a minor.
For Diego to become a partner according to section 31 which talks briefly about introduction of a
partner, that it depends on the contract between the partners but mainly diego cannot be included into
the partnership with the consent of all other partners.
Partnership act section 30, talks about a minor being admitted in to a partnership, even though a
minor cannot become a partner but they can be admitted into the benefits of a partnership. This
means diego won’t have the complete rights as he would have enjoyed becoming a partnership,
exploring the subsections. Diego will not be personally liable for any such act but his share in the
firm is still liable.

Q10) Which of the four laws studied in this course explicitly provides the most prominent role
to the courts. Explain with references to relevant sections in each law.
Ans 10) Sections CA 73,74,75, SOGS 55-58, Partnership Act 44,65. NA 80,119.
The Partnership Act, 1932 provides the most prominent role to the courts among the laws mentioned.
Under the Partnership Act, 1932, the courts have the power to intervene in the affairs of a partnership
and to make decisions on various matters related to the partnership. For example, Section 44 of the
Act gives the courts the power to dissolve a partnership on the application of any of the partners, if
the partnership has become unlawful or if it is just and equitable to do so. Section 46 of the Act also
gives the courts the power to settle any disputes between the partners regarding the business of the
partnership or the rights and duties of the partners.
In contrast, the Contract Act, 1872, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Sale of Goods
Act, 1930 do not provide such a prominent role to the courts. These laws mainly define the principles
and rules governing contracts, negotiable instruments, and the sale of goods, respectively, and do not
give the courts as much power to intervene and make decisions in these matters.
Toobas Answers:
Q3) According to Sec 10 of CA- this is a contract.
According to Sec 4 OF SALES OF GOODS acceptance and offer is there.
But this transactions includes a barter which is not accounted for since Price is equal to monetary
value (Sec 10 OF SALES OF Goods).
ALU AND BURI HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT because of consideration (2e of contract
act) but the confusion remains whether or not the barter of phone was illegal. For this agreement to
become a contract, it must be legally binding. Hence, now it depends on the law. If barter is legal,
full payment will be considered for the iphone. And if barter is not legal in Pakistan, the Seller can
sue ALU for price (SEC 55 SALES OF GOODS ACT).

Q4) Sections used: 58,9, 29a, 30-60, 16, 118-g

1) Blas draws BoE on agatha naming celia as payee (agatha is drawee and shall pay)
2) Delivers it to celia making her a holder (sec 3 e)
3) Celia indorses in favor of darby (darby is indorsee) signed or not signed?
4) Estelle steals the bill
5) Estelle negotiates to frank (frank is holder) does frank know or not?
According to section 16, indorsment by celia to darby is in full.
If frank doesn’t know that Estelle obtained the note by unlawful means, then he is holder in due
course by section 58 and 9.
118g states that the burden of proving that frank as a holder is a holder in due course lies upon
himself.
29A if celia has not signed as such then she is not liable as indorser. Then darby is no longer an
indorsee and boe can only be payed to celia.
If celia has signed as indorser making darby an indorsee of the bill then darby can get payed.

Ans 5.
Sec 6- check is payable on demand, but BOE can be paid at a fixed time as well in future.
123- A check can be crossed, BOE can be not.
Noting and protest are required for bills of exchange only (sec 99).
A cheque needs only presentment but a BOE also needs acceptance (sec 73).
Q8 8 Uzair and these points.
Sec 19 of PA (agent can do stuff for usual conduct and will bind the firm- sahy sentence book me
dekhna kia hay).
Sec 188 of Contract Act (Agent can also bound the principal).
Sec 189 of CA.
SEC 21 of PA
^both allow agents to perform any acts in emergency in favour of firm or principal.