JULY 7th 2022

Exchange of communication creating a relationship in which you exchange things which can even
be inferred. Each of you undertaking to do something in favour of the pther. He undertaking to
take you from point A to B and other paying for it.when the achieving of the purpose happens
then the elaionship comes to an end.As long as agreement in understood and performed by
parties it is understood agreement comes.the thought of things oil one party is exchanged and
communicated even without words and the party recognises each other obligation and fulfil the
obligation to the satisfaction of each other then the agreement comes to and end.

Problem comes when one party doesn't do the part.performance can be sometimes not
performed at all or sometimes it won't be performed as agreed or sometimes it is not performed
fully.

One may be aggrieved and have a remedy but one can choose to not take the remedy.

Law enabling to seek remedy if you nreed..law is not making it compulsory.just because there ilia
ready it doesn't mean

Distintinction between contract law and tort law

Right in contract comes from the contract

Right in tort comes from common law

If anything goes wrong and there is a wrong and if you want to seek a remedy then the law gives a
set of remedies.

In order to find remedy, we should first identify the injury, and then check he rights and liabilities
so that the rights and wrongs can be distinguish

Contract law is facilitating to enter into binding obligations

What is expected of the party to be performed.not all non performance as agreed necessarily be a
wrong or breach.when one is agreeing to a agreement so as to satisfy the objectives prescribed
by law so that I. So if it violated , one can go to court. Under he assumptions that the parties will
undertake the obligations agreed but if you

If clarity is not given to the court, then court will think that there is no agreement on that matter or
sometimes the looked up remedy won't get..

8th July 2022

Comes from latin word contracts which means coming to gather, combine or collect or make an
agreement.

The term agreement is used in different ways.agreement means understanding, accord,

concurrence bargain, compact, contract all suggest a binding agreement between two or more
persons.In all these cases we are looking something that is binding or brings two parties sin same
page, not necessarily obligations.

Obligation can be social, moral, proffessional etc, but here it is the obligation is of binding
character which is made binding by the law.

Bargain applies particularly to agreements about buying and selling but also to haggling over
terms in an agreement.

Compact applies to treaties or alliances between nations or to sole pledges.

Contract is sed especially in law and business to such agreement as are legally enforceable and
settlement.contract has the elect of enforceability.Legal obligation means court enforces it.
Defining contract for the sake of enforceability

SECTION 10 of the ACT - All agreements are contracts if they are made by the freelconsent of the
parties competent to contract for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object.abd are not
hereby expressly declared to be void.

Even with the act or other statues where these things should be there as additional requirement
can be there..other than

But if you in later point in time intent to bring inn court for recingniton. If it doesn't confirm with
section 10 then it would not be able to get remedy.you are providing for a situation where dispiute
arisses..congx

One decide the prior s

When each party comes with respective evidences, the court should evaluate and find which is
more reliable.quality of decision basis on quality of evidence.courts can take judicial. otice, don't
have to wait for evidencemostly when sdomrthing is pleaded, the party has th eonus to prove

11th July 2022

SECTION 2(a) PROPOSAL - to reach an agreement there are some stages. Without it an
agreement cannot be reached.
And it starts with definition which starts with
PROPOSAL(offers) - the word offer is not used here.this is one sided.communciation of thought
that goes in one mind.what should be the quality of thought is said in this section.

Salomon vs salomon - talks abt agreeing with oneself

When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to

abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of
that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal;

S 2 (a) Proposal - if one is willing to sell the car, with idea of making the other person buy the car.
These are obligation undertaken by th eparties itself.

What becomes a proposal depend upon the context or circumstance it is made and how a third
party understand abt it.

THE WORD "SIGNIFIES" is neutral word which means that it always need not be in words for a
proposal to be made.

Making a statement to you, and the person want a response from the guy to whom the proposal
is made..Like if another person who hears this and says he will buy won't be a proposal becoz it is
not meant to made to him and to a specific person.

The response to the proposal by the intended person is called PROMISE. Under section 2 (b)
When a person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to
be accepted.A proposal , when accepted becomes a promise.

The moment PARTY B accepts, the proposal that was made converts into a promise made by A
to b.HERE B makes and do one job that is to signifies the assent.the original proposal converts
into a promise.As one as offer remains an offer no issue.. the moment acceptance comes in, it
becomes a promised and then onwards he has to keep the promise.

You hav tone person signifiyinh and to that there is a respnpse.

SECTION 2 (c) - the person making the promiser and person accepting is promiseee.

Offerer - the person making the offer

Offeree- accepting the offer.acceptanc is only YES OR NO.

Fundamental to creation of promise is communication

Section 3 talks about communication, acceptance end revocation of proposals.

The communication of proposals, acceptance of proposals.In indian law, acceptance can be
revoked but in n=English law it cannot be revoked generally, means there are exceptions.

DEEMED TO BE MADE - you are attributing a certain character which actually it doesn't have.
When talking abt communication…anything that can be deemed as communicating which is used
by the party to communicate.demmed it as to be a communictaiton or sometimes consider AS IF
AS COMMUNICATION OR EVEN THI NK ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION

The fact that things are displayed in store, a reasonable man can think. That it is for sale.what can
be considered as communication depend on the context.

SECTION 9 , PROMISE EXPRESSS AND IMPLIED proposal

Sometimes a conduct can becomes implied proposal

UPTON on Seven RDC v POWELL (1942)- - - defendant entitled to free service from Penshore
Fire Brigade called the police and he asked for the fir ebrigade.The police thinking that he was at
th Euston area, the police called the Upton fire brigade.They came and sett out the fire. When the
defendant was calling he was under the impression that the service was free.

Upton fire brigade was under the impression that the service was availed by their locality.but then
realised after service that it was not under Upton locality but another locality.The question was
whether the service free of charge or not?
Should the defedant pay for the services.

The court said that he is liable because it is all implied.asusumed to be there.defedant

communicated his willingness to pay even for the service.

powell was made liable because if he wasnot made then that would have been a burden for the
society.

There was no idea of contract by both the parties, i.e Powell and fire brigade, and yet court
considered a contract there and this is called an implied contract.

SECTION 4 when is communication is complete?

Intent to make an offer to get the assent of the other person.so when do you say the offer as
communicated the proposal to the offeree…
The communication is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is
made.For A's assent the communication should be made to A itself and not to B.
The communication of the proposal is complete when B, the offer receives it.An offer by itself
does not create obligation.it makes some obligation clear to the person.it is a mere intent to have
obligation
When is communication of acceptance is complete?
The acceptance creates the obligation of the proposal in power.

When does communication of acceptance is complete from the side of acceptor - when
communication to be treated as it comes to the knowledge of the person or when it becomes
binding …it gets communicated in the case of acceptor, when it is pu in course of trasmisssioon
to him as t be out of power of the acceptor.
For the proposer, the acceptance is communicated the moment

when does thre proposal gets binding — - -when the proposal reaches B, is when he can
consider whether he wants to accept or not.
The communication of proposal is set to be completed for both the parties when the proposal
actually reaches the intended party.

Acceptance is what creates a legal relation.It converts a proposal to promise.

On 8th of July, when the acceptance letter is send.the moment the B sends a letter of
acceptance, it binds A.
The acceptor is binded by the acceptance when it reaches the proposer.so until the acceptance
letter reaches the proposer, the acceptor has the time to revoke his acceptance.

as against th proper, when it is put in transmission to him so as to out of the power of acceptor,,

As against the acceptor, when it recaches the proposer.

A proposal can be revoked unless and until the acceptance is made.That is it can be revoked till
the acceptor sends or communicate his accceptance.Propsal revoked before acceptance then it
is not open for acceptance.

Once promise is made, there is no going back.

Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Datt(1913)11 ALJ 489 Allahabad court.

The defendant nephew absconded.The defedan sends his servant to different places to search for
the boy.After sending the servant, he publishes pamphlets promising to pay 601 RS to anyone
who finds the boy.The boy was found by Defedant's Muni (accountant).The plaintiff muni came to
know about the pamphlet after tracing the boy.

The muni did not come to know about it so he didn't accepted the proposal.

DID HE GOT THE REWARD -

R vs CLARKE
(1927)
The Australian government announced a reward of 1000 dollar to anyone who gives information
about a murdere. The plaintiff in the case was the accomplice at the time he gave the
information.At the time of giving the information he wanted both the pardon and money.

The court said that at the time of accepting the plaintiff was worried about pardon.The intended
acceptor hear listen and was focused on the pardons part only.he ignored the part dealing with
1000 pounds,.. the caitiff didn't intended to acceptance th emoney reward in totem.

INTENTION TO CONTRACT
What the party is communicating should be found from the circumstances.intention to create a
agreement that is binding.
BAFFOUR VS BAFFOUR 1919.
Mr. Balfour and his wife went to England for a vacation, and his wife became ill and needed
medical attention. They made an agreement that Mrs. Balfour was to remain behind in England
when the husband returned to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and that Mr. Balfour would pay her £30 a month
until he returned. This understanding was made while their relationship was fine; however the
relationship later soured. The lower court found that there was sufficient consideration in the
consent of Mrs. Balfour and thus found the contract binding, which Mr. Balfour made an appeal.

the court said that, in a family realtions , when the promise is made, it is not intended to be a
contract, that is either party doesn't contemplate the idea of dragging the other party to the
court.intention at the Time of making or beneficiary of the ,.

Jones vs Padavatton (1969) WLR 328 Cout of Appeal.CAME FROM TRINIDAD

A mother promised to pay her divorced daughter 200$ if she leaves her job in US and goes to
London for studying for the bar.was reluctant as she had a good job in indian embassy.the
mother's idea was that the daughter can come to trinindad.

As it is a family arrangement , there no intention to contrast.

OBJECTIVITY TEST (1955) WLR 975 QUEEN'S BENCH

DIVISION
SIMPKINSI VS PAYS.

The objective test is a contract law doctrine that requires the

intention of a contracting party to be determined by what a
reasonable person in the position of the other party would
inter- pret the first party's manifestations to mean.

Facts
Ms. Simpkins was a paying boarder at Ms. Pays house, who lived
with her granddaughter. Ms. Simpkins habitually entered into
newspaper competitions. Concerning one weekly Sunday
newspaper competition, the three agreed that Ms. Simpkins would
fill in a weekly coupon, with each person making three forecasts,
yet submitting them in Ms. Pays name, and divide the prize in the
event of winning. A forecast made by Ms. Pays’ granddaughter in
one of the coupons submitted won a prize of £750 under Ms. Pays
name. Ms. Pays refused to distribute the prize and Ms. Simpkins
claimed for one-third of the prize under their agreement.
Issues
The question arose as to whether there was an intention to create
legal relations in the informal arrangement between the Parties so
as to constitute a legal agreement to distribute the shares.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that, irrespective of the familial relations and the
informal context, there was mutuality in the arrangement between
the Parties, by which they agreed to the manner of the submission
of the forecast in Ms. Pays name on a weekly basis and that, if
there was a success, all three persons would share the prize money
equally. Despite the domestic context, the filling out of the coupon
by Ms. Simpkins was not a voluntary service to Ms. Pays but rather
pursuant to an agreement by which each Party had shares in the
result, thus showing an intention to create legal relations. The Court
held that the mutual arrangement, no matter how informal,
constituted a legally-binding agreement to divide the shares in
thirds.

A grandmother , grand daughter and a lodger ear

Even though it is family, it is cave

Merit bs r=

For the work rjsj

14 July 2022 Thursday

Offers must b made to specify persons - generally -the word ANOTHER and ASSENT OF THE
ANOTHER (not anybody but the another)

Weeks vs tybald (1605) Not 11; 74 E.R 982 (the boy here is the name of the person who
wrote down)
The defedant that is the father of the daughter Whoever marries his daughter with his consent
would give the groom 100 pound

But petitioner got the consent but still did not got the money
P sued but the court said that it not reasonable that the defendant should be (bakki ezhuthanam)

Carlill vs carbolic smoke ball 1892

An adverstisement by Carbolic smoke ball co which issued that it will give 100 pound will be paid
to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza.

Carlin the P used the smoke balls but still got influenza so she claimed the 100 pounds.
Was there binding contract between the party.
The company says that the company didn't mad especific offer to specific perons.so it is not
specific it cannot be an valid offer or valid acceptance.did she gave provide a consideration in
exchange?
The defendant argued the following
The advert was a sales puff and lacked intent not to be an offer.
It is not possible to make an offer to the world. Week vs tybald
There was no notification of acceptance.
The wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit as to the
catching the flu,
There was no consideration provided since the "offer " did not specify that the user of the balls
must have purchased them.

HELD - the court of appeal was entitled to the reward.

The advertisement constitute an offer of a unilateral contract.the acceptance by her is the usage
of the product as per the advertisement.
On the intention - the statement referring to the deposit 100 pound shows the intent and therefor
eit was nit a mere sales puff
It is quite possible to make an offer to the world
The provision in contract act was put before the carlil decision that is y there is only the word
ANOTHER in the section,
The acceptance here was the conduct of the consumer
The ambiguity in wordings can be removed by giving reasonable time limit
The defendants would have value in people using the balls even if they had not been purchased
by them directly. Reinterpretation of concepts to befit the changing nature of transactions.

It revisited the principle formulated by common law court.

S.8 Acceptance by performing conditions, or recieving consideration'

Performance of the conditions of the proposal, for the acceptance of any consideration for a
reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal.

Harbhajan lal vs harcharan lal AIR 1925 All. 539

A young boy ran away from his father's house. The father issued a reward of rs 500 to anybody
who would bring the boy home.
The handbill was an offer to world at large and capable of acceptance by any person who fulfilled
the conditions contained in the offer.the plaintiff substantially performed the condition and was
entitled to the offer.

OFFER - Invitation to treat or invitation of offer- Dt

You don't require an offer with he intention of getting into legally binding, the court can take any
statement into making it into legally binding obligation.that isobar situation which discourages
advertisement. If all the information about advertisement is made into legally binding obligation, it
will discourage the producer.

It should be possible to safely pass off information but at the same time not getting into legal
obligation.here comes the invitation to offer.

Like In hotel menu, if the person asks for a dish and the hotel person say it is not there, it doesn't
mean that is legal obligation, but that is invitation of offer.

By placing it on the window it is not qn offer. When the consumer is placing it in the counter and
says the intent to buy, that is the offer and the store person has to accept it.

HARVEY v FACEY 1893 AC 552 Privy Council

Harvey send a telegram to Facey which stated that Will you sell us Bumper Hall pen? Telegraph
lowest cash price- answer paid.
Face replied by telegram - lowest price for bumper hall pen is 900 pounds.

Harvey replies - we agree to buy it for 900 pounds. Please send your title deed in order that we
may get early possession.

But here faces didn't reply for whether he would sell it or not????

The privy council held that there was no contract concluded between the parties.facey had not
directly answered the first question as to whether they would sell and the lowest price stated was
merely responding to the request of information

So every statement cannot be considered as an offer.

Unless and until the intention of the party is clear , the court is reluctant to impute the intention to
sell.
It means that the person giving information, will not be too scared on whether his information to
be considered as offer.

1953 pharmaceutical society of great britain vs Boots court of appeal

Boots introduced a new thing whereby customer take boots products by themselves and they
take it to the counter for payment.the court had to decide when does contract happens???…in
this case court said that when it is placed in the counter it is an invitation to iffer. The customer
takes it and takes it to the counter and makes an iffer.if contract happens when he takes it at the
shelves, you would need a pharmacist at the shelves each.the rule of need fo pharmacist when
selling medicine is followed here as the sale happens at the counter where there is a pharmacist.
needed where th sale or offer happens.

McPherson vs Appana AIR 1951 Sc 184 FIND ABOUT IT COZ ZHUTHIYILLA

The plaintiff promised to buy

15th July 2022

Every offer must be clear..if it is not clear not clear of th eintention of the parties, or incomplete
einfomration, it is safer to consider it not as offfer.

SECTION 2 (b) - Acceptance

When a person to whom th proposal is made, signigfes his asset thereto, the propossal is said to
be accepted.

Some overt act showing acceptance is need…mere intention is not enough,…some action should
be there which signifies acceptance,. Any reasonable act the other c[poerson can understand as
acceance

He claimant of the case ..the pqrties agreed to have a written contract..the claimant made minor
changes and filed some blanks . The defendant simply filed the document and never
communicated the acceptance.even though thetre was no express accpetamce.. because of their
act of doing the work according to the new contra t , it is said as a implied acceptance.the fact
that parties acted as per new terms is acceptance by conduct.

Hindustan cooperative insurance society vs Shyam sundar air 1952

Oral understanding to insure.if he submitted propsoal form and deposited half yearly premium
would be accepted.

Communication of acceptance must be to the offerer

Felthouse vs bindle1862
Following the misunderstanding on the price of one horse, the uncle said , if I hear no more about
him then I consider the horse to be mine at 30 pounds shillings.The nephew didn't reply but he
told the auctioneer that the horse has been sold to the uncle, even though he was going to
auction the horse.the communication of acceptance didn't happened, but the nephew had the
intention to sell th ehorse to the ucle.thbut the auctioneer seld the horse so the uncle sued him for
conversion as he sold th horse without his permission and improperly dealt with his property.

There was acceptance by the nephew but he didn't commmunicate the acceptance.the court said
th eauctioneer is not liable because at that time the owner of the horse was the nephew.

Silence canot be considered as an assent to the offerer..that is dangerous then everything will go
to the control of the offerrer.

Powell vs lee 1908

He was trying to be the headmaster..The board met and they're was acceptance in making the
guy the headmaster.all of a sudden the board chnaged it and moved …it is s said that the
ommuication of acceptance awes one od ret e

Acceptance must be in precribed form

Ellarnce vs harbour

Acceptance must

19th July 2022 Tuesday

Acceptance must be of the whole of the offer and not any part. Anything other than acceptance in
totam is not taken as acceptance.the offeror wants it to be accepted as a whole, the acceptor has
no option than to take the offer in total and not any part of it.
Ramanbhai vs Ghasi ram - the appeallant applied for shares of the companyprovided that he
should be appointed as manager pf the company.Shares were allotted to him but was not
appointed the manager.
After giving the shares, the company claimed for money.

Held he was not bound by the company by the allotment - part acceptance is no acceptance.

Inquiry of terms of proposal is not rejection

A valid offer is available to be accepted..and partial acceptance won't constitute as a contract.

Stevenson Jacques and co vs mclean 1880

Offer to sell steel for a particular price offer open till the following Monday . Offer enquired on
Monday whether delivery can be made over a period of two months0 offer treated this as rejection
.
Court held that

COUNTER Proposal may be ACCEPTED.i

If acceptance to offer is qualified or modified proposer may. Be bound if he indicates by his
conduct that he has accepted the qualification.

Hargopal vs people's bank of northern india ltd 1934

Application for shares on condition that the applicant would be made permanent director of a
local branch.shares allotted without fukfiiing the condition.
Applicat accepted dividend and even pledged his shares.

By accepting the shares, he accepted the counter offer of the company through his conduct.
His conduct waived the right.
Provisional acceptance - standing offer
Halfway creating the contract but not fully creating it.
Every order

You entered into a transaction which is contract.but how many packets that is needed , the
person doesn't know..In this case, milk producer says that how much milk you want will get what
they need.this is accepttance,

Tenders - same as quotation of price.when tender approved - becomes a standing offer - contract
anses arises on when an object order placed.

Stand of offer do not create contract. I t only ctraes sea

Bengal coal co, vs wadia and co.

A agree in writing to supply coal to B, at certain prices and upto a states quantity or in any
quantity which may be required for a period of 12 months.

Orders placed - compile dby df, before 12 months - withdrew offer - refused to comply with
further orders. Sued for breach.

Held that - - -

NOT EVEN NECESSSARY TO PLACE ORDER.

Madho ram vs secretary pf state for india. 1934
Plaintiff agreed to supply so much oil of sorts as the offenders specified may require, subject to
the condition set forth in this tender

Combat aviation and and vs cochin international airport, 1999 kerala

Tenders come in and evaluation of tender and find out that appellant was more competent tender
from the group.but board of directors selected another tenderer and told him to match the other
tenderer or appellant's terms and conditions.the question was can they go for anybody ?

The court held that the government cannot take an arbitrarily afshion. Only in fair and just
manner.yes the parties have the freedom and won't look into the choice of parties until it is free
choice.in this case it was said to violative of natural justice.

Freedom of contract allows to have contract with anybody with any price as long as you are
exercising the freedom in the real free Sense. That is freedom is not influenced by vitiating factors.
Then it is not for the law or court to interfere to find the reasonableness of the party.

20th July 2022 Wednesday

But in case go government, the government enters into contract for the public.so in that case the
government is made to take reasonable contract decisons.in a fair and reasonable manner. They
are exrscingn freedom on behalf of the public.

LAPSE of offer - acceptance must be made before the ofer lapses.

Two ways in which offer revokes - offer may lapse or the offer actually revokes expressely.

Section 6 how revocation is made.

A proposal is revoked by the communication of revocation to the other party..
Second way is the by the lapse of time prescribed in such proposal for its acceptance.
If no time is not prescribed for acceptance, by lapse of reasonable time without communication of
acceptance.reasonable time depends on facts and circumstances.

Law does not want to intervene in contract.it …law only comes when there dispute which is
brought by the party.court can't say you should come to court since there is breach.

Offer is going to be open for two days, then after two days, the offer is automatically treated as
lapsed.but even within two days, one can always revoke it.

By failure of the acceptance to fulfil the constitution precedent to acceptance or

By the death

Indian law says that if he acceptor knows dead or insane the offer lapse, other wise he can still
give accpetance

REVOCATION of proposal and acceptance.

A proposal can be revoked at any tie before the communication of its acceptance i

Communication of revocation must be from the offeror himself.

A proposal is revoked by the ocmmunication of notice

Dickins vs Dodds
The offer was open till a date and time. Before the time expiration plaintiff accepted the offer.the
court said that offer has to be treated as withdrawn.at the time when offeree made the
acceptance the house was sold

Henthorn vs Frase.1892
Offer to sell property to plaintiff for 750 pounds option to accept within 14 days.
Next day -

The revocation was held evocative

When the revocation was made

Nutakki
1992 (1) sc 114 LOOK INTO IT FOR CASE LAWS

Even when offeree has option to accept within fixed number of days, the offer can be revoked
before that. But if it is for some consideration,offeror cannot cancel it before the expiry of that
period then it is irrevocable.

Mount ford vs Scott 1975

P givs an option to buy property for 10,00 pounds and there is a contract to make the offer to be
open for six months.but that offer to keep it open is supported by a consideration, then it is
irrevocable.

21 July 2022 thursday

Even where offeree has option to accept within a fixed number of days the offer can be revoked
before that but if it is for some consideration of

REVOCATION of bid - can be revoked before it is accepted or it is subject to confirmation

Union of india vs Bhimsen walati ram

The defendant won the auction for aliquot shop where it was required to pay 1/6 of the cost
upfront ..but for the bid to be finalised by the financial commissioner where until he approves,
the bid is not finalised or selected but the defendant didn't paid the rest of the amount. So the
commissioner ordered a re- auction…in the next bid, the overmen loss money and the lost money
was sued to be recover from the defendant.

Held ny the court that the commissioner did not give his final approval for the bid.

LAPSE OF TIME
Ramsgate Victoria hotel vs montefiore 1886
The defendant offered to purchase shares at a certain price in June - no time prescribed. On
November the claimant accepted his offer but but hat time value of the shares fallen . The action
for specific performance was filed by by claimant.

Held offer no longer open nature of the subjects matter offer lapsed after a reasonable period of
time.

Standard form of contract - contracts d adhesion

Recognising the fact that there Is inherited inequaity favouring the stronger party I.e the
producer.the court tries to balance it.enusre that the weaker party interest is protected at large.

L'Estange v Graucob 1934

A lady purchased a cigarette vending machine. She signed an order form.It was made in small
print that "any express or implied , condition , statement of warranty, statutory or otherwise is
expressly excluded" - the machine was totally defective. - claimant sought ti reject it for not being
of merchandise quality.

Held - in signing the order form she was bound by all the terms contained in the form irrespective
of whether she had read the form or not.

This unfarinenes in this was recognised by court and the court brought some rules to balance this.

GIVE REASONABLE NOTICE - tell them these are the terms and then let them make a call.

Henderson and others vs Stevenson 1875

A condition on the back of the steamer ticket excluded liability for loss of luggage - nothing on the
front of the ticket but attention was not drawn to the condition on the back of the ticket - steamer
sank and action for lost luggage - quaerion is whether this exclsuionclause to be treated as
contract.

Held - it was held that the extension clause was not incorporated in contract. The note of the
clause was not adequate therefore it was not included in the contract.

Parker vs south eastern railway company 1877

Plaintiff deposited a bag in a cloak room at the df's railway station - received a paper ticket which
read "see back" - other side are printed several clauses including the company will not be
responsible for any package exceeding the value of 10 pound. Bag lost claimant sued for 2410 as
the value of bag.

In court of appeal Mellish gave that

If person receiving the ticket did not see or know that there was any writing on the ticket, he is not
bound by condition.

DOCUMENT must be of a contractual character - not binding otherwise.

Chapelton vs Barry 1940
Council local provide some deck chairs on beach. Besides stacked chairs with notice saying that
Barry Urban district council cold snap. Hire of chairs. 2 dime per session of 3 hrs. Appellant
bought two chairs where he got two ticket

Befiore taking the chair he should have given the earlier….there were conditions in the board and
comparing with that to the ticket, the ticket conditions are late. He don't reasonably think that it
will have conditions on the ticket.

Thornton vs shoe lane parking ltd - 1971

Pl injured in a car park due to the df negligence.
The cour theld - the machine itself constitute the offer and acceptance is once you put money into
the machine.terms and conditions should be given before that.ticket dispensed after the
acceptance…therefore the clause was not incorporated into the contract .he doesn't have the
freedom to say no since he put money already.

BUT IF SIGNED MAY BE BOUNDN AS IN L ' ESTRANGE V GRAUCOB

Unfair to bind - gives a person freedom to exclude himself from liability.
Most of these sexclusion clauses are very wide and all pervasive leaving no remedy to the other
party

So courts have carved out exceptions

Doctrine of fundamental breach -
Terms are unreasonable
Terms are misrepresented

22nd July 2022

MISREPRESENTATIOn- on the basis of informtation available to the other, the party signs the
contract.so any small info hidden will come against the agreement person.

1951 Curtis vs chemical cleaning and dyeing co

Pl took her wedding dress to the cleaners asked to sing a form asked the assistant what she was
signing - assistant told her that it excluded liability for 'Anu damage to the beads' form in fact
contained a clause 'excluding all liability for any damage however caused' dress returned badly
stained.

HELD - Assistant

ORAL ASSURNACES PREVAILING OVER

Mendelssohn vs normand ltd 1970
Person parked his car- attendant told not to lock it as to move ca

Held liable - coz what the attendant said went over the contract

UNUSUAL TERMS should be brought to notice clearly. If there are detrimental clauses, it is
absolute importance to bring in the notice of the other perosn.

INTERFOTO Picture library vs Stilletto 1989

Claimants had photo library and defendant was in adverstisement.- advanced some
transperabcies- given to defendant for perusal which were to be returned - the package of photo
contained a document stated that if it kept longer than 14 days, 5 pounds + VAT holding fee
would be charged per photo per day … the defendant looked at the document but did not read it.
He filed to return for 6 weeks, he was liable for 23, 783 pounds.

Held - where condition is onerous or usual - Clear fair and reasonable methods should be made
to bring it to the other party's attention- here condition is unreasonable and extortion.

The fact that the price was not brought into attention. As a part of standard contract, if the terms
are onerous, then it should be brought to the attention of other paerty.

NOTICE SHOULD BE CONTEMPORANEOUS

OLLEY VS MARLBOROUGH COURT.
Couple rented. Room paying a weeks rend in advance.inside the room there was a notice that th
ehotel will not be responsible for articles lost or stolen unless handed to managers for safe
custody- fur coat stolen
Held - not bought before or during contract..it was bought after getting into contract.

FUNDAMNETAL BREACH
so times happens the one may not get benefit in contract and even won't get compensation for
not getting benefit.
A rule of construction - by ascertaining parties' intention.
Davies vs Collins 1945 - held liable because the necessary

ALEXANDER VS RAILWAY EXECUTIVE 1951

LU

GIBAUD VS GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY 1921 - a cycle deposited at station at the deft railway
company. - not in fat taken to cloakroom - left in the booking hall itself - stolen….comoany half
protected by the clause in the ticket which exempted the company from liability.

The court of appeal could not find no fundamental breach

HOLLINS VS DAVY 1963

Suisse Atlantique société d'armament maritime, SA v. NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale- 1966

WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL BREACH

Lord Wilberforce - these expressions are sued in the cases to denote two quite different things
namely , in suiesei atlantic

A performance totally different from that which the contract contemplates.

A breach of contract more serious than one which would entitle the other party merely to
damages and which (at least ) would entitle him o refuse

Harbutt's plasticine ltd vs Wayne tank and pump co ltd 1970

UNREASONABLE TERMS
Lilly white vs Mannuswami 1966 madras.

Central Inland water transport corp vs BN GAnguly 1986

What happens if the stronger arty is a government?government us a stronger party.

Contract employment …government represent the people so can't act like private party
contract employment - terms providing for removal of permanent employees without enquiry -
unreasonable - against the applicability of the expression "public policy" on the touchstone of
section 23 of indian contract act and article 14 of constitution.

27th WED JULY 2022

Unfair contract terms act , 1977 of UK
A party who commits breach of his contract cannot take the advantage of any classes in the
contract which either excludes or limits his liability - if there is any provision in the contract to the
effect that "no performance " or "substantially different performance" will be taken as equivalent
to performance - void
A crystallisation of what was developed in common law.
The effet it is no
An intervention of statues to strengthen the common law contract laws.

GEROGE Mitchell (chesterhall )ltd vs Finney lock seds ltd 1983- ——plaitiff farmer ordered a
quatntity of seeds from seed merchants - seller knew that the seeds should be for winter white
cabbage fir fir humN CONSUMPTION - supply on standard terms - limited liability in case of
defective goods to replacement or refund of price - speeds grew into unusable weeds - not
anything fir for human consumption.

Defendant were not allowed to claim the protection of the exemption clause - held liable for the
plaintiff loss
The plait had based their claims on fundamnrtlat

UK - Unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999 implements the ec directive 93/13/ec on
unfair terms in consumer contracts
Regulations 8 makes an unfair term non- binding on the consumer. Schedule 2 provides a non-
exhaustive vblakslist of contractual terms which are regarded as unfair.this list includes clause

STRICT CONSTRUCTION(interpretation)
Especially when the exemption clause is so widely expressed to make it unreasonable.because
the stronger party had the chance to make the words in contract, when any am iguity in words
come it is interpreted in the favour of the weaker party

JOHN lee and son Grantham ltd vs railway executive 1949

Goods stored on a railway warehouse let to a tenant.- damaged by fire accident - due to
negligence because a spark ejected from railway engine - clause in the tenancy agreement -
exempted them for the looser damage to property however caused (wheter by act)

CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE

where the words are capable of bearing wider as well as a narrower construction the narrower
construction would be proffered and against the party who has inserted the exemption clause.

Houghton vs trafalgar insurance co.ltd 1953

Car insurance policy - exlsuing liability for loss or damage arising while car was carrying 'excess
load' - accident - total loss of car - five stater- carrying six persons

Held - any doubt about the word 'excess party' constructed against the stronger party.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) Article 2 - Sales USA - try to bring some kind of unity
Bizz friendly state
Unconcionable contract or term- if the contract as a matter of law finds the contract or any term
of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was mad e the city may refuse to
enforce the contract
Section 2 - 302

Where the goods supplied or services rendered worth he exemption clause - cannot bind third
parties.

EXEMPTION CLAUSE vis a vis third parties

Haseldine vs Ca daw and sons ltmd - contract to maintain and repair a lift

Norwich city council vs Harvey -1989

Pl employed main contractor to contract an extension to its building - a standard from contract -
provides that - building and extension would be at the

Sub contractor would Laos be entitled for protection even on negligence

As far as tortious liability - no close relationship between owner and sub contractor - to owe

INDIA. CONTEXT
103RD REPORTS OF THE LCI, UNFSIR TERMS IN CONTRACT , 1984

199TH REORT O TH E LCI

29th JULY 2022

Section 10 says "what agreement Is contract"

Lawful consideration
The word consideration is qualified by the word lawful consideration but not legal
consideration.

Lawful is something law is. willing to recognise to accept or valid consideration.law

wailing to recognise desirable acceptable for the purpose of considering the sections in
contract.
Unlawful is something law is reluctant to accept it.

Contract law is an facilitator. It docent restrict the rights of the person.

Section 2(d) - consideration ———— When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or
any other person has done or abstained from doing(before the promise), or does or
abstains from doing(simultaneous to the promise) or promises to do or to abstain from
doing(after the promise is made), something, such act or abstinence or promise is called
a consideration for the promise.

A promise without a consideration still be promise. It does not become bindig. The
consideration makes the promise unbreakbale or binding. That is legally binding.
For it to be legally binding, a consideration is needed from the other party.
1. AT THE DESIRE OF THE PROMISOR.
YOU DONT Need a promise, ti only need a desire to the promise.when somebody gives
you a promise and the other person responded to it, you don't allow the person who
made the person to walk back.

If you relied upon my promise and given me consideration, then the walking out pff myself
will have consequcnes..so in generally for the breach of contract is damages.so
sometimes compensation is not adequate, so equity court made PROMISSORY
ESTOPPEL. You make a promise and the other person get to know it and relies on it and
because of the reliance he changes his position which is detrimental to its position.

DURGA PRASAD v BALDEO 1880

Order from the collector by virtue of which plaintiff build some shops. So the defendant
occupied one of the shop rooms.who agreed to pay a commsionon articles sood as the pl
had spent money on construvtion.PL action to remover commission

Rejected the court said no contract. There is promise os not binding. The shop room was
not build because of the df requirement or the desire of the defendant. It was build by
order of collector.

KEDARNAH VS GORIE MAHOMED 1886

Subscription for building a town hall at Howrah. It was a public subscription. The df
subscribed for rs 100.the plaintiff entered into the contract of building the building. The df
failed to give the money.

Held that act of the plaintiff starting the oncstruction was at the desire of the defendant.so
as to consttitute consideration under section 2(d).sometimes it is just satisfaction of the
desire.

The subscriber by subscribing his name says, in effect" in consideration of your agreeing
to enter into s contact to erect or yourself erecting this building, I undertake "

DISTRICT BOARD OF RAMNAD VS MAHOMED IBRAHIM 1933

A sum of rs 5000 was promised by defendant as personal contribution for the purpose of
constructing the bridge. Held liable to pay following Kedarnath "a promise to pay
subscription becomes enforceable as soon as any definite steps have been taken in
furtherance of the object and on faith of the promised subscription " to your detriment by
relying on the promise i.e change your position. Relying on the promise, the person
changes his position that is detrimental to himself.

DORASWAMY IYER VS ARUNACHALA AYYAR 1936

Trustees of a temple sought to recover a contribution promised by a subscriber to a
subscription list for the repairs of a temple. Subscription list was raised as more money
was required for the work already started. Df subscribed rs 125. No request by the
subscriber when he put his name in the list for rs 125.

Consideration for understanding whether to attribute legal obligation for the promise by
the promisor. Consideration might be before the , at the time of after the promise, it hits
be in response to the desire of the promisor.unless the promisor asks for it whatever
amounts does not amount to consideration.

Errington vs Errningoton woods 1952

Father in law purchased a house and paid 250 pound as wedding gift. House was in a
500 pound in mortage instalments. The father in law promises the couple that if they paid
the remaining amt in instalment he would transfer his house to them . But father in. Law
died and mother inherited . Son went to live with his mother.- wife refused and continued
to pay the mortgage instalments - mother brought an action to remove the the wife
Fromm the house.

Held - the father could not have revoked the promise once th3 couple had begun to
perfming act - father made a unilateral contract- could not be revoked once they began
the performance but would cease to bind him if they did not perform their side - payment
of the mortgage formed the consideration in the agreement.

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL STOPPED FROM DENYING

A representation made to another about a fact (not law), based on which the other person
alters his position to his detriment. In such case the person who made the representation
cannot alter his position.
What would a reasonable man understands about the representation.

Also called equitable estoppel, quasi estoppel and new estoppel

Base don the doctrine equity stopped in to mitigate the rigours of the law.
Relying on the representation acts upon on it - changed or altered his position - generally
to his detrimental.
There might be no actual hair but we are looking legal injury

The principle of Estoppel in India - also a rule of evidence

Section 115 of Indiana evidence act 1872
115 estoppel - as given in evidence act , When one person has by his declaration, act or
ommison intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe (relied)……….

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT/ based on PRIVITY OF CONSIDERATION— the promisee or

another person.
Merely because a neighbour is affected he can't claim for a contract for which he is not
part of it. If A and B entered into agreement and A doesn't do the waste removal,, the
neighbiur can't go and ask for compensation eventhiug it is only the neighbour is
affected.

In civil matters the locus standi is put in rigorous form this is because the state or system
or society wants to avoid litigation and ti minimise the litigation. So It insists that they
don't want to encourage speculative litigation, they want genuinely affected people only
because only then those cases be adjudicated properly. So maybe genuine cases might
get thrown down but that is a n disadvantage that state should allow to make the cases
and society under control.
In English law there is only "the promisee" there was no "any other person"…… in india
the consideration can come from the promisee or any other person.the contract might be
between promisor and promisee but any one can gve consideration to the promiser.

DUTTON V POOLE 1677

Father planned to sell wood to raise dowry for his daughter. The eldest son who was to
inherit the wood, interceded and promised the father the he would provide for the
daughter , if the father would not sell the wood. Father agreed and the son failed to pay to
the daughter. Daughter sued him, argued tat the consideration did not proceed from the
daughter and thats she was not in privet
Held liable even though not a privy to contract or consideration.

Quality of the dispute is not compromised - so locus stand was there.. so the court
doesn't want any other person comes to the court but only the parties where the person
can bring quality evidences and tell the intention of the parties.

TWEDDLE VS ATKINSON 1861(laying down of principle but later courts have carved
exceptions).
A couple getting married - father of the bride entered into an agreement with the father of
the groom that they would each ay the coupe a certain sum of money. Father of crude
dies without paying and father of the son also died so unable to sue on the agreement.
Both the original parties died. Groom made a claim against the executor of the bride's
father's will.

Held the groom was not party to the agreement and the consideration did not move from
him - not entitled to enforce the contract…. This case establish the principle of privity-
No stranger to the consideration can take advantage of a contract - even of the sole
object of the contract was to secure him benefit.
The parties only communicated, knows the contract and knows the consecration so the
court demnds that the parties come to the court. So the principle of privity of contract
came from this case.

The privity of contract is based on the principle that the person has not paid or did not do
the consideration. Let them alone come to contract if they are aggrieved. Let not others
come.privity of contract is based on privity of consideration.

Even though in india by this Time

Dunlop Pneumatic tyre co ltd vs Selfridge & co ltd. 1915
FACT— dunlop wanted to maintain a standard resale price. They agreed with its dealer
(dew and co ) not to sell them below its recommended retail price. The dealers was
supposed to get the similar undertaking from their retailers (selfridge). If sold below the
list price , the dealer or retailer have to pay 5 pound a tyre in liquidated damaged to
dunlop- Selfridge sold the tyres below the agreed price, dunlop sued for induction and
damgaed.

Court held that - could not sue.

Doctrine of privity that only a party to a contract to a contract can sue
Doctrine og consideration requires a person with whom a contract is only able to enforce
if there is a consideration from the promisee to the promisor
Doctrine of agency requires that the principal not named in the contract can only be sued
………..

If the retailer is willing to take the hit of low price, then how can one can force the other.
The price is issue is because the manufacturer wants to make the price in certain
category so that consumer thinks that the quality is of higher quality than cheaper goods.

PRIVIY OF CONSIDERATION - Not relevant in india

Chinnaya vs Ramaya 1882

An old lady , by deed of gift , made over certain property to her daughter D, under the
direction that the she should pay her aunt, P (sister of the old lady), a certain sum of
money annually. The sm day D entered into an agreement with P to pay her the agreed
amount. Later D refused to pay the amount on the plea that no consideration has moved
from the P to D.

Held -n P was entitled to maintain suit as consideration had moved from the old lady ,
sister of P, to the daughter , D.

Here priivity of consideration is dilute and not followed in India but the privity of contract
is followed in india. The aunt is party to the contract but the issue is whether there was
consideration.

Beswick vs Beswick 1968

Peter Berwick a coal merchant. He agreed to sellll his business to his nephew , the
respondent. The only condition that was there was that to employ him and pay a certain
sum of money for as long as he lived and then to pay his wife (the appellant)
, 5 POUND for the rest of her life after he died. He died. Nephew only paid his aunt once.
She was also the admininstratrix of her husband's will.

Held - aunt has no right to sue her nephew in her own capacity. Not a party to the
contract. Overturning Denning's findings in CA allowing third parties to sue for the refit
that were guaranteed to them under a contract. However in her capacity as the
administration, she will be able to sue him for the specific performance of his promise that
was made in the contract. In the end she can sue . The court came in the same result by
using another way. The court tries to use other methods to give justice by not breaking
the privity of contract. The court retained the common law principle of privity but found a
way to give her the remedy through EQUITY.

In the court of appeal , Denning MR(master of roles) held that MRS. Berwick was entitled
to claim in her capacity as a third party intended to benefit from th eocntract.

Where a contract is made for the bef=nefit of a third

'

Person who has a legitimate interest to enforce it, it can be enforced by the third person
in the name of the contracting party or jointly with him or, if he refuse to join, by adding
him as a defendant. In that sense and it is a very real sense , third party has a right arising
by way of contract.
House of lords disagreed with lord de inning MR - held that mrs Berwick in her capacity
as mr beswick's administration (I,e as the person representing someone;'s estate who
dies without a will) could enforce the nephew's promise to pay mrs Berwick an annuity -
furthermore mrs Berwick was enticed to specific perforce of contract

JAMNA DAS VS RAM AUTAR 1912

A borrowed rs 40,00 , mortgaging her right over property from B, later sold to C for rs 44,
000- allowed C to retain rs 40,000 - to redeem the mortgage if necessary.

B sued C for recovery of mortgage amount - did not succeed - as not party to agreement
between A and B.

A and B has contract

A and C has contract

KWAJA MUHAMMAD VS HUSSAINI BEGUM 1910

HE sued he rathe ran law to recover of rs 15,000 being the arrears of allowance Calle
dKkarchi-i-pan-dan - Betal box expense- payable tp her by K under an agreement
between K and H's father in consideration of H's marriage to K's son D .Both H and D
were minors at date of marriage.

The privy council held that the promise to be enforceable by H. Their lordship observed
that in india where the marriages are contract for minors by parents and guardians it
might occassion serious injustice

Subbu cehtti vs arunachalam chetiar

Sale deed of rs 3,500- stipulation that rs 1,2 000

MC Chacko vs state of Travancore (1970)

Highland bank indebted to SBT on an overdraft - MC Chacko was manager of HB- his
father guaranteed payment of overdraft - father gifted properties to member of family -
gift deed provision - liability if, any on guarantee , in that deed - must be met from MC
Chacko's share of the gift i.e if liability arises from default, should be met from MC Chako
share of gift.- SBT tried to rely on this provision of gift deed to fix responsibility on mc
choke
Held - SBT not being party to deed - cannot enforce provision

PROMISEE OR ANYOTHER PERSON

HAS DONE OR ASTAINED FROM DOING
DOES

10th August 2022

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF PRIVITY
1. Beneficiary under trust - settler creates the trust - trusteee on whom the trust is
created and reposed and beneficiary for whose benefit the trust is created. The
contract is generally between settler and trustee and beneficiary generally is a third
party. Where beneficiary under the trust though not party to the contract generally ,
and if the beneficiary can't sue, then it defeats the very purpose of trust

RANA Uma Nath vs Jang Bahadur 1938

Father appointed son a successor - put in possession of entire property - son agreed with
father to pay a certain sum of money and give a village to J, an illegitimate son if the
father on his becoming major - son later refused - j filed suit.

Held - a trust was creates in his favour I.e J- entitled to maintain the suit.

Example of implied trust is PUBLIC trust doctrine where the government is the trust in
making the environment safe. The state has pbligation to protect the environment
because the common man has entrusted the government in protecting it , a public trust is
created.

Gregory and Parker v William 1817.

Parker owed money to both Gregory and to William - agreed with Williams to assign him
whole of his property of William would pay the debt due to Gregory - properly duly
assigned - William failed to implement his promise.

Held - Parker must be regarded as a trustee for Gregory - latter "derived an equitable
right throught the mediation of parker's agreement.

RES JUDICATA AND CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA ?????/??…to alllow the right
person to come to court, the locus stands is applied

GREENE VS CHELSE A BOROUGH COUNCIL 1954

Husband took premises on license - wife injured as the ceiling gave away
Was allowed to sue the owner own her own right as beneficiary.

2. Marriage, settlement and Partition

This exception isgiven as most of the members of the family might be minors so any
agreement would consider minors even though not party to contract

Rose Fernandez vs Joseph gonsalves 1924

Girl's father entered into an agreement with the df for her marriage with the df- girl
become major and sued where df refused to marry - on the ground of breach of promise

Held - entitled to sue though not party to the agreement.

Veerama vs Appayya 1957

Daughter and husband - agreement with father of wife - to look after the mother and
maintain her- if father's property is conveyed to them0 later refused to look after - mother
sued for specific performnce.
Held - entitles to sue evnthough not a party to the agreement
Rose fernandez vs Joseph gonsolesz ( same principle as before)

3. Estopppel / Acknowldgement
Devaraja Urs vs ram Krishniah 1952
A sold house to B - asked B to retain a portion of sale consideration - to pay off C to
whom he was indebted - B made a part payment to C - telling him that it was from the
amount left by A and what that remaining would be remitted - later failed.

Could C sue?

Because he made part payment , it is acknowledgement. After this you can't go back.

In law not only the end result is matter, even the means to achieving it should be right and
legitimate if not more than the end or aim.