Mannu Singh v.

Umadat Pandey , (1890) ILR 12 All 523:

FACTS: In this case the spiritual guru induced his devotee (Plaintiff) to gift his all property to the guru. A spiritual
advisor induced the plaintiff, his devotes to gift to him the whole of his property to secure benefits to his soul in the
next world. The plaintiff gave whole of the property to the advisor.

VERDICT: The consent is obtained by undue influence. The court said: would any reasonable man in the full
possession of his essence and not under unusual influence of some kind or the other do such a thing.

Oceanic Steam Navigation Company VS Soonderdas Dharamsey

In a Bombay CASE: The defendants chartered a ship from the plaintiffs, who stated that the ship was certainly not
more than 2800 tonnage register. As a matter of fact the ship had never been in Bombay and was wholly unknown to
the plaintiffs. She turned out to be of the registered tonnage of more than 3000 tonnes.

VERDICT: It was held that the defendants were entitled to avoid the charterparty. “There was the positive assertion
by the plaintiffs about the size of the the ship --- an assertion not warranted by any information the plaintiff had at
time, and which was not true."

Boulton vs Jones
Facts of the Case: Jones, the offender, operated a construction materials company. He was a frequent client of
Brocklehurst, which supplied him with construction supplies. They were friends with each other now on both sides.
On a beautiful day, the offender sent Brocklehurst’s store a written order for products. The offender moved his
company to Boulton without knowing that Brocklehurst had already been sold. When Boulton got the order for the
goods, he made the decision to fulfill it and gave the items to the defendant without letting him know that he had
taken over Brocklehurst’s company. The offender used the items after accepting them under the impression that
Brocklehurst had provided them.

ISSUES of the CASE: Was Jones the defendant to Boulton, be liable to pay? And whether the claimed goods amount
by the Boulton was already used by the Jones or not?

Whether there was any duty on the Boulton which has to be performed for giving the information regarding the
taking over of the business and its information to be given to Jones?

JUDGEMENT: The judge ruled that Mr. Jones, the defendant, was not responsible for paying Boulton’s fee. A contract
is crucial when it is formed with a particular individual. There was therefore no agreement between the parties.

Hartog vs Colin & Shields

FACTS: The defendants, Colin and Shields, were hide merchants that were based in London. The complainant, Hartog,
was a furrier from Belgium. The defendants entered into an oral agreement with the complainant to sell him 30,000
Argentinian hare skins and this would be at a price of 10d per skin. However, the defendant made a mistake on their
written agreement that said they would sell the complainant 30,000 hare skins at 10d per pound. This would mean
that the price difference was one third cheaper for the complainant than had previously been agreed. Hartog
accepted this offer, but the defendants refused to fulfil contract.

ISSUES: The complainant argued he suffered a loss of profit and claimed damages when the defendant did not
honour the contract. The defendant argued that Hartog would have known that this was a mistake to the pirce of
hare skin and that he had fraudulently accepted the offer. The issue in this case was whether the contract would be
rescinded for the mistake to the price of hare skin.

VERDICT: It was held that there was no contract between the complainant and the defendant. Any contract would be
void by the mistake of the hare skin price; the complainant would have known that it was normally sold per piece
and not by pound. The court said that there is a duty to correct a mistake that is known to not be the real intention of
the person making it. You cannot simply take advantage and ‘snap up’ the offer.
Fateh Singh vs Sanwal Singh
FACTS: In Fateh Singh, the appellant was required by the Magistrate to furnish two sureties for his good behaviour,
each in the sum of Rs 600. He deposited the sum with the respondent and persuaded him to become a surety. After
the period of suretyship was over, he sued the respondent for the amount.

VERDICT: The Allahabad High Court held the agreement void and the amount irrecoverable. The intention in
requiring a surety is that the surety shall at his own risk see to the appearance of the accused. This purpose is
definitely defeated by an agreement of the above sort. A contract to indemnify the surety against his liability is illegal
for the same reason.

Atamal Ramoomal vs Deepchand Kessurmal

An agreement made for a "fraudulent" purpose is void. Where the par- ties agree to impose a fraud on a third
person, their agreement is unlawful. Where, for example, a debtor agreed to pay a separate commission, or to give
preference to a creditor in order to induce his consent to a composition which is proposed with other creditors, the
object of the agreement is fraudulent.

Ram Sarup Bhagat vs Bansi Mandar

FACTS: An agreement between two persons to injure the person or property of another is unlawful. In the same way,
if the object of an agreement is such that it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, the
agreement is unlawful and void. A person borrowed a sum of hundred rupees and executed a bond promising to
work for the plaintiff without pay for a period of two years. In case of default, the borrower was to pay exorbitant
interest and the principal sum at once.

VERDICT: The court held that the contract contained in the bond was indistinguishable from slavery, which involves
injury to the person and was, therefore, void.

Fender vs John Mildmay

FACTS: The defendant, who was a married man at the time, met the plaintiff at a nursing home where she was a
nurse. He told her that he was unhappy with his wife and later asked her whether, if his wife divorced him, she would
marry him after the divorce. She consented and thereupon sexual relations took place between them. The wife
petitioned for a divorce on the ground of this adultery and a decree nisi was pronounced. 75 The defendant then
promised to marry the plaintiff as soon as the decree was made absolute. But he committed the breach of this
promise by marrying another woman. The plaintiff sued him.

VERDICT: The claim was resisted on the ground of immorality, but she was held entitled to recover. What is immoral
is interference with marital status, whereas, in the present case, "after decree nisi the bottom has dropped out of
marriage: nothing but a shell is left". Accordingly, the circumstances which led to mischief were absent here.
ENGLISH ASSIGNMENT

NAME- SHIVVESH SINGH

B.A.L.L.B, 1 SEMESTER
ST

TOPIC- TENSES

SUBMITTED TO-
MISS. RAMA GUPTA

BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO

AMEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
 ECONOMICS
ASSIGNMENT

NAME- SHIVVESH SINGH

B.A.L.L.B, 1 SEMESTER
ST

TOPIC- LAND REFORMS

SUBMITTED TO-
MR. VINOD KUMAR PAL

BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO

AMEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
 LAW OF CONTRACT
ASSIGNMENT

NAME- SHIVVESH SINGH

B.A.L.L.B, 1 SEMESTER
ST

TOPIC-CAPACITY TO CONTRACT

SUBMITTED TO-
MISS. ANSHU MISHRA

BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO

AMEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
 SOCIOLOGY
ASSIGNMENT

NAME- SHIVVESH SINGH

B.A.L.L.B, 1 SEMESTER
ST

TOPIC- PUBLIC OPINION

SUBMITTED TO-
MR. RAM SINGH

BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO

AMEDKAR LAW COLLEGE