Question 1: - CASE IN POINT: Raghav had been …………

by contract between Raghav & arjun legal?

QUESTION AT HAND: Whether the agreement
between Raghav and arjun works?
RESOLUTION: In terms of section 27 of the contract act
of India, 1872, Always an agreement that prohibits
anyone from using legal activity, trading or business of
any kind thus nothing.
CONSULTATION: Arun offered Raghav to give him 20
hectares of agricultural land if Raghav agrees to
permanently close his shop. In term of section 27 of
Indian contract act, 1872, even if both parties agree on
the contract is in retrain of trade, that contract will not
be valid.
Now, this rule has something different:
1.SALE OF GOODWILL: It means that the seller of
business interest can agree with the consumer to shop
managing the same business. Now, the current case
does not fall into the category of interest sales because
it just a bakery, there was nothing special about it. So
this exception does not apply here.
2. THE PARTENERSHIP ACT: In terms of section 11 of
the partnership act, 1932 partners during the
continuation of the firm to limit one of them will do
any business other than that of the company. Since,
there was not a partnership between arun and Raghav,
this difference is not the case apply here.
Article 21 of India’s constitution guarantees “the right
to life and liberty freedom” and this is a fundamental
right.
Everyone is free to be do any work and trade and no
one can take this for granted without any law made for
the public.
JUDGEMENT: By decision and consideration, this
contract between arun and Raghav are empty at first.

Question 2: - THE FACTS OF THE CASE: Puneet made

an agreement with Vivek to supply furniture. He was
required to deliver the furniture on 30 September
2019. According to the contract agreement, it was
clarified that if delayed Puneet would be charged in
Rands. 1000 per day as payment.
The question of the Law was involved that this contract
is valid in terms of the Indian Contract Act 1872 where
Vivek is obliged to perform his duties within a specified
period?
PROVISION OF ACT: Section 64 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872 defines the definition of “Contract Violation”
In this particular category, there are two types of
Contract Violations but the case provided includes the
“Annotation Breach of Contract” referred to in Section
39 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
ANALYSIS: In terms of Section 39 of the Indian contract
act, 1872 in the event of a contract breach prior to the
specified time to do so it shall be called the
anticipatory breach prior to the specified time to do so
it shall be called the anticipatory breach of contract. In
this case, there will be two options in the hands of the
party that has not yet received its consideration.
1. The aggrieved party may treat the contract as
revoked and sue the other party.
2. The party may choose not to cancel the contract
and arrange another contract for the future.
CONCLUSION/JUDGEMENT: In the given case, Puneet
entered into an agreement in which he was to deliver
the furniture to Vivek within the stipulated time.
Puneet and Vivek formed an agreement in which they
had to pay a fine in the event of a breach of contract.
Based on the case presented, it is very clear that
Puneet delivered the goods before 30 September
2019. Therefore, he has done his part in Vivek
again so that we can say that no contract
violations have taken place.
Therefore, in terms of Section 64 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872 which specifies contract violations it is
very clear that this is not a breach of contract.
Both parties have fulfilled their part of the
obligation to each other. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the contract provided is valid.