used by independent Indias courts? To the extent this Act deals with a subject, it is exhaustive upon the same and it is not permissible to import the principles of English law dehors the statutory provisions; Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur & Co [1954] SCR 310, AIR 1954 SC 44 unless the statute is such that it cannot be understood without the aid of English law; State of West Bengal v BK Mondal [1962] 2 Supp SCR 876, AIR 1962 SC 779 or where any matter cannot be brought within the provisions of the Contract Act. In regard to the law of contract, the courts in India have taken guidance from the common law of England where no statutory provision to the contrary is in existence; Firm Kanhaiyalal v Dineshchandra AIR 1959 MP 234 Can foreign Courts judgments be used by Independent Indias Courts? Although none of these decisions are binding upon the courts in India, they are authorities of high persuasive value to which the Indian courts may legitimately turn for assistance. Whether the rules laid down in any of these cases can be applied by the courts, must however, be judged in the context of the Indian laws and legal procedure and the practical realities of litigation in India. Forasol v Oil and Natural Gas Commission AIR 1984 SC 241, (1984) Supp SCC 263
The decisions of Australian, Canadian and other Commonwealth courts
and of the Courts of the United States of America, when relevant, will have persuasive authority and will be listened to in courts in India with attention and respect, as judgments of eminent men accustomed to expound the principles of jurisprudence similar to our own. CP Motor Spirit Act IN RE. AIR 1939 FC 1; Tan Bug Taim v Collector of Bombay AIR 1946 Bom 216 Intention to create legal relationship
Balfour v. Balfour (1918-19) ALL ER 860.
Jones v. Padavattan, (1969) 2 All ER 616. Mc gregor v Mcgregor, (1888) 21 QBD 424. Merritt v. Merrit (1970) 1 WLR 211. Simpkins v Pays, (1955) 3 All ER10. Examples: contract for sharing house Does Indian Law require Intention to create legal relationship? CWT v. Abdul Hussain, (1968) 3 SCC 562, 569. Proposal/Offer Specific Offer Weeks v. Tybald, (1605) 75 ER 982. (Overruled) General Offer
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
(1893) 1 QB 256. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt , (1913) 11 All LJ 489. Other elements of proposal Objective test of intention - Bowerman v. Association of British Travel Agents Ltd., [1997] CLC 451. Invitation to treat- mere use of word offer or invitation is not conclusive. Advertisement for tenders and Continuing/standing offers Proposal must be certain Terms of proposal- essential and ancillary conditions Proposal subject to contract- no proposal Acceptance Acceptance is final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of an offer. Pollock & Mulla Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1891-4] All ER 127 Harvey v. Facey [1893] AC 552 Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913) 11 All. LJ 489 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. (1952) 2 All. ER 456 Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. A.I.R. 1966 SC 543 Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB 869 Powell v. Lee, (1908) 24 TLR 606. Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co., (1877) 2 App Cas 666 HL. Related aspects of acceptance mere mental resolve to accept an offer External manifestation or overt act Acceptance by Conduct Communication of acceptance to who? Communication of Acceptance by whom? Burden of refusal CONSIDERATION Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (1886) 7 I.D. 64 Cal. Doraiswami Iyer v. Arunachala Ayyar (1935) 43 L.W. 259 (Mad.) Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali AIR 1914 All. 22 Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkataramaya Garu (1881) 1 I.J. 137 (Mad.) Privity of contract Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Nawab Husaini Begam (1910) 37 I.A. 152 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose (1903) 30 I.A. 114 Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh AIR 1928 Lah. 609 Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal AIR 1937 All. 610 FREE CONSENT Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (1923) 51 I.A. 101 SUBHAS CHANDRA v. GANGA PRASAD AIR 1967 SC 878 LAKSHMI AMMA v. TALENGALANARAYANA BHATTA (1970) 3 SCC 159 TARSEM SINGH v. SUKHMINDER SINGH (1998) 3 SCC 471 GHERULAL PARAKH v. MAHADEODAS MAIYA AIR 1959 SC 781 NIRANJAN SHANKAR GOLIKARI v. CENTURY SPINNING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. AIR 1967 SC 1098 CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED v. BROJO NATH GANGULY (1986) 3 SCC 156 (AIR 1986 SC 1571) Distinction between the expressions void and voidable DHURANDHAR PRASAD SINGH v. JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY AIR 2001 SC 2552 DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACT SATYABRATA GHOSE v. MUGNEERAM BANGUR & CO. AIR 1954 SC 44 M/s. ALOPI PARSHAD AND SONS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1960 SC 588 PUNJ SONS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1986 Del. 158 EASUN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. THE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. AIR 1991 Mad. 158 REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT HADLEY v. BAXENDALE (1843-60) All ER Rep.460 A. K. A. S. JAMAL v. MOOLLA DAWOOD, SONS, AND COMPANY (1915) 20 C.W.N. 105 KARSANDAS H. THACKER v. M/S. THE SARAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AIR 1965 SC 1981 M/s. MURLIDHAR CHIRANJILAL v. M/s. HARISHCHANDRA DWARKADAS AIR 1962 SC 366 MAULA BUX v. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1970 SC 1955 SHRI HANUMAN COTTON MILLS v. TATA AIR CRAFT LIMITED 1969 (3) SCC 522 GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. UNION OF INDIA AIR 2000 SC 2003 OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. v. SAW PIPES LTD. 2003 (4) SCALE 92 QUASI-CONTRACTS STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. B.K. MONDAL AND SONS AIR 1962 SC 779