Contract Case Assignment

Table of Contents

SL Topic Page No
01 Haji Abdullah Khan vs. Nisar Muhammad Khan (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 481 01
02 Hussain Ali Khan vs. Firoza Begum 21 (1969) DLR 9 01
03 Dula Mia vs. Haji Md. Ebrahim 8 (1956) DLR 616 02
 Case 1: Haji Abdullah Khan vs. Nisar Muhammad Khan (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 481.

Issue: Whether the intention of the agreement was to defeat a law or not?

Law: Section 2(d) of the Contract Act 1872 provides the definition of “consideration”.
Meanwhile, Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872 establishes the fundamental principles
concerning lawful considerations and objects.

Application/Judgment of the Court: In this case, the court noted that when there exists a
condition precedent for a transfer’s validity under the law, parties are within their rights to
form an agreement depending upon meeting this condition. Challenging an agreement for
sale on the grounds of public policy could only succeed if it can be demonstrated that the
agreement’s intention was to contravene the law. If the parties to the agreement for sale
merely seek compliance with the law’s requisite sanction for the sale, they are not attempting
to undermine the law.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is evident from the above discussion that the agreement’s intent
plays a pivotal role in cases involving the circumvention of legal provisions. The intention
and the presence of the required sanction should be considered in such cases, as these factors
render the agreement void.1

Case 2: Hussain Ali Khan vs. Firoza Begum 21 (1969) DLR 9.

Issue: Whether the contract involves injury to the person or property of another or not?

Law: Section 2(d) of the Contract Act 1872 provides the definition of “consideration”.
Meanwhile, Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872 establishes the fundamental principles
concerning lawful considerations and objects.

Application/Judgment of the Court: In this context, “injury” signifies the infringement of

someone’s legal rights, even in the absence of tangible loss or damage. Consequently,
agreements to vandalize another person’s car, defame someone, or trespass onto someone
else’s property, regardless of whether they cause actual loss, are deemed invalid.

Conclusion: Hence, the court concluded that contracts that adversely impact the lawful
interests of a third party, both in terms of their status and property rights, are void.2

1
Dr. Muhammad Ekramul Haque, Law of Contract (3rd edn., Law Lyceum, 2016) 185.
2
Ibid.

1|Page
 Case 3: Dula Mia vs. Haji Md. Ebrahim 8 (1956) DLR 616.

Issue: Whether the case goes against the public policy and morality or not?

Law: Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872 establishes the fundamental principles concerning
lawful considerations and objects as well as the concept of morality and public policy that is
variable in nature.

Application/Judgment of the Court: Section 23 of the Contract Act invokes the concepts of
public policy and morality, which are inherently dynamic and perpetually precarious grounds
for legal judgment. Determining what aligns with or opposes public policy and morality
hinges on the specifics of each case and the prevailing state of public opinion and moral
values within the relevant community. Consequently, courts exercise prudence when
addressing this issue, typically resisting the creation of novel categories of public policy and
refraining from expanding its application beyond established cases. Public policy should not
be mistaken for encompassing all government policies as they evolve over time, nor should it
invalidate agreements solely due to their perceived conflict with unstated or non-evident
objectives of the law.

Conclusion: Therefore, the court rendered the case null and void, finding it in contravention
of public policy and morality.3

3
Dr. Muhammad Ekramul Haque, Law of Contract (3rd edn., Law Lyceum, 2016) 187.

2|Page