Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Contract Notes - Rahul

    Uploaded by

    Smritika Kesri
    9 views22 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views22 pages

    Contract Notes - Rahul

    Uploaded by

    Smritika Kesri

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 22
    TABLE OF CASE LAWS Sunday, February 1 6PM CASES ‘The Plaintiff, believing Defendant's advertisement that its product would prevent influenza, bought a Carbolic Smoke Ball and used it as directed from November 20, 11891 until January 17, 1892, ‘when she caught the fu Plaintiff brought suit to recover ‘the 1008, which the Court found her enttied to recover. ‘The defendant ran a self-service shop in which non-prescription drugs and medicines, many of Which were listed in the Poisons List provided in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, were sol. ‘These items were displayed in ‘open shelves from which they could be selected by the customer, placed in a shopping basket, and taken to the till where they would be paid for. ‘The till was operated bya registered pharmacist ‘+ However, the ciaimant brought proceedings against the defendant for breach of section 18(1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which requires: ‘the supervision of @ registered pharmacist for the sale of any item in the Poisons List. ] ‘a couple went to England on leave. For health reasons the wife was unable to accompany ‘the husband again to Ceylon (Husband's place of work) AUTHORITIES SME + Section 2(d) of ICA 1872 - consideration issue ‘This case considers whether an advertising gimmick (Le. the promise to pay 100 to ‘anyone contracting influenza while using the Carbolic Smoke Ball) can be considered ‘an express contractual promise to pay. "Defendant's Appeal was dismissed, Plaintiff was entitled to recover 1008. "The Court acknowledges that in the case of vague advertisements, language regarding payment of a reward is generally @ puff, which carries no enforceability. * In this case, however, Defendant noted the deposit of £1000 in their advertisement, as show of their sincerity * Because Defendant did this, the Court found their offer to reward to be a promise, backed by their own sincerity Issue * Whether the contract of sale was concluded When the customer selected the product from the shelves (in which case the defendant was in breach of the Act due to the lack of supervision at this point) or "when the items were paid for {in which case there was no breach due to the presence of the pharmacist atthe til), + Section 25(1) of ICA 1872- Agreement without consideration is void, unless, ‘itwas not expressed in writing and registration on account of love and affection + Section 10 of ICA 1872 - What agreements are contract PRINCIPLES * Wagering contract, it should be acted upon , and it was acted upon. There was ample consideration for the promise , and that, ‘therefore plaintiffs entitled to recover the rewards, + Standing offer- with public until the offer is not withdrawn ‘This case stands for the proposition that while sales puffery in advertisements is generally not intended to create a contract with potential product buyers, in this case it did because the Defendant elevated their language to the level cof a promise, by relving on their own sincerity ‘The mere fact that a customer picks up a bottle of medicine from a shelf does not amount to an acceptance of an offer to sel butis an offer by the customer to buy "The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not in breach of the Act, asthe contract was completed on payment under the supervision of the pharmacist "The display of the goods on the shelves were not an offer which was accepted when the customer selected the item; "Rather, the proper construction was that the customer made an offer to the cashier upon arriving at the til, which was accepted when payment was taken ‘This analysis was supported by the fact that ‘the customer would have been free to return any ofthe items to the shelves before a payment had been made. ‘No bargain ‘No intention to make it a contract * Consideration + Some right profit- benefit - forbearance - oss - responsibilty given or sutfer ‘The consideration, as we know, may consist ‘The husband promised to pay30| _* Allagreementare contract if they are either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit pounds per month to his wife as made by accruing to one party, or some forbearance, ‘maintenance, but he failed to ‘the free consent of parties detriment, loss, or responsibility pay. competent to contract given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. ‘The husband was held not lable, «© for lawful consideration as there was asno intention to and with a lawful object + Parties did not intend that they should be ‘and are not hereby expressly attended by legal consequences declared to be void ‘onsideration obtains - natural love & “Nothing herein contained shall affect any affection law in force in india and not hereby ‘expressly repealed by which any contractis required to be made in writing orin the presence of witness or any law relating to the registration of documents. ‘Here no intention to make contract + Section 8 of Indian contract act 1872 Ratio Decidendi = “Acceptance by performing ‘To have complete knowledge of the facts of * In this case, the defendant Gauri 0 the offer or proposal Dutt’s Nephew had absconded consideration ‘Acceptance of the offer and was nowhere to be found. Issues * A person to whom the offer is made, the ‘After the defendant became *Whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to get the _offeree, must accept the proposal. The aware of the same, Dutthad ‘reward from Gauri Dutt for tracing the missing communication regarding the offer i also very sent all the servants in search of | Boy. important as mentioned in section (4) ofthe ‘the missing nephew. "Whether there was a valid acceptance ofthe ICA. It states that communication can only be * The plaintiff Lalman Shukla was _offer made by the plaintit. complete when it comes to the knowledge of one ofthe servants whohad "Whether there exists a contract or whether the the person to whom its made ‘gone out in search of the situation amounts to a contract between the nephew. The plaintiff eventually |‘. '“To convert a proposal into an agreement both ‘ound him and brought him knowledge and assent must be present. Here, back + Shukia had no idea that such an in the given instance, both were missing ‘announcement was made.- He found the * When Lalman Shukla had left the nephew and brought -Six months after the As the plaintiff had no knowledge and hadn't house to leave for Haridwar from said incident occurred, Dutt sacked the given hs approval or accepted the proposal Kanpur he was handed some plaintitt. there did not exist a valid contract between money for his rly are and ‘After being removed from the job, the the two. other expenses. As soon 3s plaintiff claimed the money from the Lalman Shukla had left the defendant and the later denied to pay the * At the time when the plaintiff was searching house, the defendant announced said remuneration for the boy, his obligations and duties were as a reward of Rs. 501 for * The plaintiff was inthe service of the defendant. a servant. Therefore the plaintiff Lalman whosoever found Dutt’s ‘Duty and obligation was on him to search the Shukla was not entitled to get the award nephew boy. 1 He obliged to duty before the handbill of reward The judgement was offered + In the said case, the petitioners’ appeal *Gauri Dutt argument against the respondent Gauri Dutt was ‘Section 2() clismissed by the court. ‘Section 2(b) ‘Here, the plaintif did not know the «there is intent to accept, the contract, reward before performing his act. He arises upon performance of the requested conly came to know about it ater, in services during the continuance of the which case there was no possibilty of offer and the offereeis then entitled tothe accepting the offer reward promised ‘Hence, there was no contract. Therefore, Lalman Shukla was not entitled to get or claim the reward. «Sections 3 & 4 of ICA.1872. +A contract unlike a tort is not unilateral ‘The rule which determine the place, _* There should be meeting of minds for where contract is made contract. "On July 22nd 1959, Kedia ‘Deals with communication, acceptance _ + Entores Ltd. V. Miles Far East corporation Ginning Factory and Oil Mills ‘and revocation of proposals. 1955)? OB 327) «Section 4-—The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom its made + Section 5 of ICA 1872 Revocation of proposals and acceptances ‘+A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. ‘+n acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards ‘The respondents contended that the cause of, action for the suit arose at Ahmedabad as the appellant's offer to sell was accepted at Ahmedabad and the appellant was to be paid for the goods through a bank in Ahmedabad. ‘The appellant contended that the respondents’ offer to purchase was accepted at Knamgaon; the delivery and payment of the goods were also ‘agreed to be made in Kamgaon and the City Civil Court of Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction to try the suit. (appellant) of Knamgaon entered into a contract over telephone to supply cotton seed cakes to M/s Giraharill Parshottamdas and Co. (respondents) of ‘Ahmedabad. ‘The respondents commenced an action against the appellant in the City Civil Court of ‘Ahmedabad for failing to supply cotton seed cakes as per the aforementioned agreement. The City Civil Court of ‘Ahmedabad held that it had jurisdiction as the acceptance of ‘the offer was intimated to the offeree at Ahmedabad and that is where the contract was made. ‘The appellants filed a revision application in the High Court of Gujarat which was rejected. ‘Then, the appeliants preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court with special leave * Harvey sent a Telegram to Facey Which stated: - "Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid;” * Facey replied by telegram Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900." "Harvey then replied:~ ‘© "We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of, nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please send us your ttle deed in order that we may get early possession.” ‘The complainant, Paul Felthouse, _* Paul Felthouse sued Mr Bindley inthe tort had a conversation with his of conversion, with it necessary to show nephew, John Felthouse, about that the horse was his property, in order to buying his horse prove there was @ valid contract. ‘After their discussion, the uncle * Mr Bindley argued there was no valid replied by letter stating that ithe contract for the horse, since the nephew didn’t hear anymore from his had not communicated his acceptance of nephew concerning the horse, the complainant's offer. ‘Ino far asthe proposal or acceptance of any promise made is made in words, the promise is sai to be express In so far as such proposal or acceptance is made ‘otherwise than in words, the promise is said to ‘The rule about instantaneous ‘communication (telephone) - ‘the contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror { proposer) Contract is made at the place Where the acceptance is received + Contract by post ‘© Acceptance is complete as soon as the letter is put into the post box. ‘Place of acceptance is the place where contract is made Hebbs* ‘The post was the common agent of both the parties ‘The theory of expedition ‘The acceptance was put in the course of {transmission at Khamgaon and under the Words of our statute Ifind it dificult to say ‘that the contract was made at Ahmedabad where the acceptance was heard and not at Khamgaon where it was spoken ‘Judgement: The court held thatthe contract act does not expressly deal withthe place where a contract has been made. As against cases of correspondence by post or telegram, in the present case of correspondence bya telephone, ‘The mere statement of the lowest price at Which the vendor would sell contains no. implied contract to sell at that price to the ppetsons making the inquiry ‘tno evidence of an intention that the telegram sent by Facey was to be an offer. ' It was held that there was no contract for the horse between the complainant and his, nephew. There had not been an acceptance of the offer; silence did not amount to acceptance and an obligation cannot be imposed by another. ‘Any acceptance of an offer must be ‘communicated cleary. Although the nephew had intended to sell the horse to the he would consider acceptance of the order done and he would ‘own the horse. * His nephew did not reply to this letter and was busy at auctions. "The defendant, Mr Bindley, ran ‘the auctions and the nephew advised him not to sel the horse. However, by accident he ended Up selling the horse to someone else. * Standing offer The facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave, are these: 2. The Dominion of India, as the owner of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway, represented by the General Manager of that railway, invited tenders for the supply of jaggery to the railway grain shops. ‘The respondent submitted his tender for the supply of 14,000 imperial rmaunds of cane jaggery during the ‘months of February and March 1948, The tender form contained a note in ara 2 which was meant for the {quantity required and the described dates of delivery. This note was: * "This Administration reserves ‘the right to cancel the contract at any stage during the tenure of ‘the contract without calling up ‘the out standings on the Unexpired portion of the contract” ‘The dates forthe delivery of the four instalments were slightly changed by a subsequent letter, dated February 28, 1948. "The issue in this case was whether silence or | complainant and showed this interest, there 2 failure to reject an offer amount to was no contract of sale. acceptance Thus, the nephew's fallure to respond to the inorder complainant did not amount to an acceptance to convert a proposal into a promise, the of his offer. ‘acceptance must (1) be absolute and unqualified; (2) be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which itis to be accepted. Ifthe proposal prescribes a manner in which itis to be ‘accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but, if he falls to do so, he accepts the acceptance S.Mohan, ‘Tata Cellular v. Union of ind tem eanater TR 09ESC Ti ad anrene ‘Sinaig afersupul revocation he sands eady. "steno offer is something ‘ne 'nrepance’ ofthe ender however, does vh inves ods communists 0 notconvertheoferinoatirdingeonvcr for | nautvaceptanee Brody sate, the Donec of ae imple that he Bayer hat folowing are te equstesof av agreed to arcept the goo ae 1 Sipuch termi contact which dstoys the ot emustbe uncontina fontacfss according tothe eater ters 6 2 Must be made atthe proper TT pice the aleged correct wien would have been Savas conf tothe tems of binding on he eppetam oatton «Section DoF ICR whet spreement re contac edt Must be made atthe proper * Secon 2 of CA 1872 time, ‘Hiner comigeratins snd objec are awl and 5 Mustbe made inthe proper wt none contrat or objet ofan form, agreements wwf, uless 6 Te person by whom he sits orden by Tov o tender bade must ese and TEotsuen a nere tay pemized, wing perform hs blr; wuld dete ne provisions af any sor 7 Tere must be resonable slsteuauen or oportunty for nspecton, “velvet the person or Tender must be made tthe Hopemy atari or prope pewon, Sn Cou regards os immora or 3 Rust be ot fl amoure sopored to au pot +The val court dmbsed the slchaing at «Thegato ese Caves, te consideration or the aay amination coud cancel she thiectofansgreementissed tobe. | contact rthout ging ony reson whenever Gnlowtl veryapeementof wich the led wthout king se Ble ey ony ‘object or consideration is unlawful is void damages + The High Court held that the clause reserving 13. By his etter, dated March 8, 1948, the Deputy the right in the appellant to cancel the General Manager informed the respondent that contract was void and in view of the trial Court the balance quantity of jaggery outstanding on having not decided the issue about damages, date against the order, dated February 16, 1948, remanded the sult for disposal ater dealing be treated as cancelled and the contract closed. with that matter. ‘The protests ofthe respondent were of no avail» Supreme court upheld the judgment of the as the railway administration took its stand high court and dismissed the petition! ‘against the stipulation that the right to cancel the contract at any stage was reserved to it * Ultimately, the respondent instituted the suit against the Union of India for recovering damages resulting from breach of contract. + Article 226 of Indian Constitution +The Government, by merely providing such a + Section 23 of ICA 1972 clause in tender notice could not take away ‘+The respondents advertised for ‘What consideration and objects are lawful that legal right ofthe petitioner receiving tenders for the sale of Tendu- and Patta (leaves) from unit No. 7, Budi “what not The petitioner gave a tender in pursuance of the tender notice No. «© Provision may defeat the provision + 1972-X, 69 dated 25.3.1969 at the rate of any law of Rs. 38.25 p per standard bag © Fraudulent ‘He also deposited some amount as Injury to person security. The tenders were to be immoral opened on Sth April 1969 but before they were actually opened, the ‘The reply on behalf of the respondents is that petitioner made an application under the tender condition No. 10(b) (i) (Annexure A’ resiling from his tender tenderer may be allowed to withdraw his tender and requested that since he has, of any unit of division before the withdrawn his tender, it may not be commencement of the opening of tenders of opened at all. that division on the condition that on opening ‘+The tender was, however, opened as the remaining tenders, there should be atleast this was the only tender submitted for one valid tender complete in all respects that unit. The Government accepted available for consideration for that particular the tender and since the petitioner did unit. not execute the purchaser's ‘In this case, since there was no other tender, the agreement, proceedings were now tender given by the petitioner could not be being taken for recovery of withdrawn, s.24,846.12 on the allegation that the» We are unable to accept this contention. A Tendu leaves of the unit were sold to person who makes an offer is entitled to somebody else later and the balance withdraw his offer or tender before its was recoverable from the petitioner acceptance is intimated to him ‘*Tendu-Patta In the present case, the short question that falls _* Tender legal, at the proper time of for consideration is whether the tender ‘The first respondent invited tenders offered by the appellant with the rebate could for execution of five items of work _ have been accepted and whether such including supply, delivery and stacking acceptance would affect the interests of any other (of 75,000 cubic metre machine party crushed track ballast as per specifications atts depot in + Now the appellant made his offer of Naurozabad and loading it into Railway concessional rates along with the tender Wagons. hile respondent No. 5 made such offer ‘The supply period was for 24 months. after opening ofthe tenders, The conditions in the tender notice + tis difficult to conceive that the respondent required that the rates at which supply No. S who is prudent businessman would was to be made had to be stated in not be aware of commercial practice of words 2s well asin figures against each _giving rebate or concession in the event of item of work as per Schedule attached Quick finalization ofa transaction. thereto; + What the appellant offered was part of the ‘+ thatthe tenders submitted with any tender itself while the respondent No. 5 ‘omissions or alteration of the tender made such offer separately and much later. document were liable to be rejected; ‘There was nothing illegal or arbitrary on the ‘however, permissible corrections could part of Railway Administration in accepting be attached with due signature of the the offer ofthe appellant, which was made renderers; at the time of submitting the tender itself. ‘thatthe tenderer should hold the offer ‘open tll such date as may be specified inthe tender which was for a minimum period of 90 days from the date of opening of the tender; ‘that contravention of the conditions would automatically esultin forfeiture of security deposit; ‘that the tender was liable to be rejected for non-compliance of any of the conditions ofthe tender form ive persons including the appeliant participated in the auction. Though the reserve price fixed in the tender notice was Rs. 95,000/-, the appellant's bid of Rs. 92,004/-, being the highest, was accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer ‘+The Finance Department invited ‘comments from the Divisional Forest Officer as to why the settlement was made for a lesser amount. ‘+ Matter was pending - Appellant filed application to settlement on the basis of highest bid of 95000/- ‘The minister of forest directed that coup may be settied with highest bidder - Appellant - but no intimation was received by divisional forest officer -he did not communicate the proceeding of the minister to the appellant + One Md Yakub -filed a petition before Gut offering 101125/- ' As previous communication was not transferred to appellant -The previous settlement with appellant was cancelled and settled with Md yakub for 101125/- ‘The sult was instituted on or about the 10th of December, 1954. The suit arses from a deadly and tragic air crash that ‘took place in Nagpur on the 12th December, 1953 around 3:25 ‘am. when a Dakota aeroplane \VI-CHF crashed when it started to fly towards Madras. The route of the plane was Nagpur to Madras. ll the passengers and ‘the crew members died in this, air crash and only the pilot, Desmond Arthur James Cartner remained alive (On the same aircraft @ young business ‘The special conditions n the tender notice ‘makes it clear thatthe Divisional Forest Officer has the right to accept a bid of less than Rs. 5,000/-, that acceptance of a bid of more than Rs, 5,000/- by him is sublect to confirmation by the Chief Conservator of Forests and the Forest Department of the Bihar Government and that @ bid made in auction and which has been provisionally accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer shall be binding on the bidder for two ‘months from the date of auction or till the date of rejection by competent authority whichever is earlier ‘+ Appellant - There was a concluded contract when the Government confirmed the acceptance, even though the confirmation was not communicated to the appellant. ‘Arguments put forward by the plaintif + On this ground the defendant is liable for, damages for breach of contract for not safely carrying the passengers on board and for breach of duties under the Carriage by Al Act andor of the notification thereunder. + An alternative plea in the plaint also states that the defendant was lable for negligence and/or misconduct. The particulars of negligence was also specified in the plaint in the following words — ‘The port engine of the plane lost power after getting ir-borne causing a swing and that it was due to defective supervision and check up. ‘The defendant, Indian Airlines Corporation relied ‘on the exemption ciause’s T&Cs of the ar ticket ‘dated 11.12.1953 issued by deceased Judgement ‘Here the acceptance made by Minister of state was of second offer of 95000/- not ‘to original bid settlement which was 92001)- ++ We are, therefore, ofthe opinion that ‘there was no concluded contract between ‘the appellant and the Government. Judgement The ened al udge eld hte enpton care wares val trroneour and vid Te earned ge feed on te case Sexy. of State Me Rulrminib! (AR 1957 Nagpur 358) to decide ones pine Kao hel optain Cortes nelgent. The court also held that the obligation imposed by law on common carriage isnot founded upon. ‘8 contract, but on the exercise of public ‘employment for reward, because the Indian Contract Act itself has no application. Th ‘the deceased and came to a conclusion that the contract did not offend against the rman of about 28 years of age, Sunil Baran Chowdhury was enroute to [Nagpur from Calcutta. There are three plaintiff in this case ~ 1. The widow of the deceased, Sunil Baran Chowdhury 2. His minor son, 3. His minor daughter The defendant in this suit is Indian Aitiines Corporation. ‘it appeared that it was thought advisable to erecta Town Hall at Howrah, provided sufficient subscriptions could be got together for the purpose. ‘To this end the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality set to work to obtain the necessary funds by public subscription, creating themselves, by deed, trustees of the Howrah Town Hall Fund. ‘As soon as the subscriptions allowed, the Commissioners including the plaintiff, who was also Vice Chairman of the Municipality entered into a contract with @ contractor for the purpose of building the Town Hall, estimates and plans were submitted to, and approved by, the Commissioners, the original estimate ‘amounting to Rs. 26,000. ‘This estimate, however, was increased 10 Rs, 40,000, and it was found that the subscriptions would cover this ‘amount, and the original plans were therefore enlarged and altered ‘The defendant was @ subscriber to this ‘The corporation would not be liable tothe passengers or his or her legal representatives or dependant for death, injury or delay to the passenger or tohis, property ‘The defendant denied the allegations of misconduct, negligence, defective supervision or check up ‘The defendant also pleaded that in any event that there was an error in judgement for which the pilot cannot be held liable and that the plot was a skilled and competent expert and acted bona fide reasonably in good faith. res ipso loquitor - The things speak for itself * the principle that the mere occurrence of some types of accident is sufficient to imply negligence. Efsection 21d) of ICA 1872 - consideration) + the High Court on the following points: (2) Whether the suit as laid by the plaintiff was legally maintainable? (2) Whether, upon the facts stated, the trustees ere entitled to judgment?) ‘Without reference to his being a trustee or ‘2 Municipal Commissioner, we think that tunder the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure he is entitled to bring an action on behalf of himself and others jointly interested with him Be + Section 25 of ICA 1872 ‘Agreement without consideration, void, unless itis in writing and registered or is 2 promise to compensate for something “Gone or is a promise to pay barred by limitation law provisions of the Contract Act and that it {gave complete immunity tothe defendant {rom oss or damage consigned to its care for cariage ‘Te Bench observed that ifthe deceased had by 2 contract during his lifetime excluded himself from the right of claiming a damage, then his dependants or beneficiaries under the Act could not claim it The learned tral judge held thatthe exemption céause in the contract was good and valid and has a complete arto the plants’ right of action in the present case The Bench held thatthe maxim of FEBS) four! may or may not apply to air accidents because it solely depends upon the facts of each accident. They also held that iis 2 rule of evidence bearing primarily on the question of The Bench assumed everything against Captain Cartner that his action was at all actionable negligence and they held that it was at best only an err of judgement, by applying all he principles and facts ofthe case The appeal was allowed. The suit was dismissed ‘and the exemption clause was held good, valid ‘and legal and there was no negligence of the defendant Corporation or of the pilot, Captain Cartner. + Person were asked to subscribe knowing the purpose of money -an ol incurred to pay the contractor - contract + Valid contract for good consideration fund of rupees one hundred, having signe his name in the subscription book for that amount. ‘+The defendant not having paid his subscription was sued in the Howrah Court of Small Causes by the plaintiff as Vice3Chairman and trustee and therefore as one of the persons who had made himself iable tothe contractor for the costs ofthe building, to recover the amount entered in the subscription book ‘The present respondents - the ‘trustees entered into a contract for the necessary repairs in the ‘month of February 1928, and the Imaistry of the contractor was supplied with money from village common fund, “+s the work proceeded more money was required, and to raise this money subscriptions were invited and a subscription lis formed. This was in October. ‘The present petitioner put himself down in the lst for Rs. 125, and itis to recover this sum ‘that the suit was file. * Abdul aziz V. Masum All AIR 1914 All 2 ‘+The plaintiffs’ sister, by deed of gift on the 8th April 1877, made over certain landed property to the defendant, her daughter. By the terms of the deed which was registered, it was stipulated that an annuity of 853 rupees should be paid every year to the plaintiffs as had hitherto been paid by the donor until a village could be given them ‘The defendant on the same date executed in plaintiffs‘ favour a Kararama promising to give effect to the stipulation of the deed of gift by paying the annuity until she gave them a village, ‘The annuity was not paid and the plaintiffs sued to recover it. ‘Nawab Khwaja muhammad khan V. ‘The lower Court has decreed the suit. The plaint «Its not pleaded, nor is there evidence, that founds the consideration for this promise as there was any request by the subscriber follows: ‘when he put his name in thelist for Rs. 125 to «That plaintiffs relying on the promise from the plaintiffs to do the temple repairs or that ‘the subscriber incurred liabilities in ‘there was any undertaking by them to do repairing the temple. The question is, does anything this amount to consideration? The + Bare promise unsupported by consideration in such cases the burden of proof would be (on party contends that the stipulation amount is not reasonable. * in Union of india v Rampur Distellery the Court states the forfeiture clause can be construed either as liquidated damages or as a penalty, depending on the reasonableness of the amount to be forfeited, * Liquidated Damages should be regarded In addition to the construction work as stipulated under the contract, plaintiff did some more ince the officers making such requests were Unauthorized by the government to do so, hence, there was neither any agreement between the construction work as requested by parties nor the rule of Promissory Estoppel could an officer of State of W.B "Government though started using the constructed warehouse, yet ‘on account of the work not being recorded in form of contract as provided under Article 299 of Constitution, denied any liability to pay for it Issues: Whether there was any contract, between the State of W.B. and plaintiff? ‘Whether the rule of Promissory Estoppel can be evoked? "Whether plaintiff can ciaim under 8.70 of Indian Contract Act (ICA)? "= Petitioner participate in the e~ auction organised by respondent no. 2and 3 * Petitioner's bid was accepted by the respondents for 4000 metric tons at Rs. 1,625/- per metric tons from Dobari Colley. be invoked (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills) © First, person should lawfully do something for another person of

    You might also like