Law of Contract I PDF

Class –LL.B. I SEM.
Subject – Law of Contract-I
SYLLABUS
UNIT I: INTRODUCTION
 History and Nature of Contracted Obligations

 Agreement and Contract: Definitions, elements, and kinds of contracts
 Proposal and acceptance
 Consideration
UNIT II: CAPACITY TO CONTRACT

 Free consent
 Undue Influence
 Misrepresentation
 Fraud
 Mistake
 Unlawful considerations and Objects
 Fraudulent
UNIT III: VOID AND VOIDABLE AGREEMENTS
 Injurious to person and property

 Immoral
 Against Public Policy
 Void and Voidable agreements
 Contract without Consideration
 Agreement in restraint of trade, marriage etc.
 Contingent contract, wagering contract and its exceptions
UNIT IV: CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
 Contractual obligations – performance, remedies, discharge of,

 Damages, remoteness of damages, ascertainment of damages
 Government contracts
 Quasi Contractual obligations
UNIT V: SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT
 Specific performance of contract

 Contracts that can be specifically enforced and that can’t be specifically enforced
 Persons against whom specific enforcement can be ordered
 Rescission and cancellation
 Injunctions– temporary, perpetual, mandatory, obligatory
 Declaratory decree
 Discretion and powers of court
1
Class –LL.B. I SEM. Subject – Law of Contract-I
Law of contract is the most important and basic part of Mercantile law. It is the foundation for many
other laws falling in the category of mercantile laws. It is not only the mercantile or trader but every
person who lives in the organised society, consciously or unconsciously enters into contract from
sunrise to sunset. When a person hires a taxi, or orders something in a hotel or buys something form a
shop, purchases a newspaper, ride a bus etc. he actually enters into and performs contract though he
may be unaware of this fact. Such contracts at times create legal relations giving rise to certain rights
and obligations.
The law relating to contracts in India is contained in Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Act came
into force with effect from September 1, 1872. It is applicable to the whole of India except the State
of Jammu & Kashmir (As per Section 1).
SCHEME OF THE ACT: The scheme can be divided into two main groups. The Act as enacted originally
had 266 Sections divided into following groups:
PROVISIONS SECTIONS
General Principles of Law of Contract 1 to 75
Contract relating to contract of Sale of Goods 76 to 124*
Special kinds of Contracts (for example: Indemnity,

Guarantee, Bailment, Pledge and Agency) 125 to 238
Contracts relating to Partnership 239 to 266**
These sections were repealed from the Contract Act, 1872 and two new Acts were enacted for the
same:
* SALE OF GOOD ACT, 1930
** PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
PRESENT FORM OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

Law of Contract basically relates to the essentials of a valid contract, the rules for performance
and discharge of a contract and the remedies available to the aggrieved party in cases of the breach of
the contract.
The Indian Contract Act, in its present form may be divided into two parts-
 The First part of the enactment i.e. Section 1 to 75 deals with the general principles of the law
of contract which apply to all types of contracts irrespective of their nature.
 The second part (i.e. Section 124 to 238) deals with special types of contracts namely
indemnity and guarantee, bailment and pledge, agency etc.
Enforcement of Act: The Indian Contract Act was passed in 1872 and came into force from 1st
September, 1872. Prior to this English law of contract was followed in India. Law of contract creates jus
in personam and not jus in rem. It extends to whole of India except state of Jammu and Kashmir.
OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT: The objective of the Contract Act, 1872 is to ensure that the rights and
obligations arising out of a contract are honoured and that legal remedies are made available to an
2
aggrieved party against the party failing to honour his part of agreement. Act lays down the basic
principles of the formation, performance and enforceability of contracts. Although, law of contract is
not the whole law of agreements or that of obligations.
DEFINITIONS OF CONTRACT
“Every agreement and promise enforceable at law is a

POLLOCK contract.”
“A contract is an agreement between two or more persons

which is intended to be enforceable at law and is contracted
HALSBURY by the acceptance by one party of an offer made to him by
the other party to do or abstain from doing some act.”
“A contract is an agreement creating and defining obligation

SALMOND between the parties”
SIR WILLIAM "A legally binding agreement made between two or more
persons by which rights are acquired by one or more to acts
ANSON or forbearances on the other or others."
In essence, an agreement may be or may not be enforceable by law, and so all agreements are
not contracts. Only those agreements are contracts, which are enforceable by law.
AGREEMENT + ENFORCEABILITY BY LAW = CONTRACT
Hence, it can be concluded that “All contracts are agreements, but all agreements are not contracts.”
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRACT & AGREEMENT
BASIS OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT

DISTINCTION
Section Sec. 2(h) Sec. 2(e)
Definition A contract is an agreement Every promise or every set of promises
enforceable by law. forming consideration for each other is an
agreement.
Enforceability Every contract is enforceable Every promise is not enforceable.
All contracts are necessarily Every agreement need not necessarily be a
Inter-relationship agreements. contract.
3
The scope of a contract is Its scope is relatively wider, as it includes

Scope limited, as it includes only both social agreement and commercial
commercial agreements. agreements.
Only legal agreements are An agreement may be both legal and illegal.
Validity and legal called contracts. Every contract It is not necessary for every agreement to
obligation contains a legal obligation. have legal obligation.
VARIOUS DEFINITIONS UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
 Proposal (i.e. offer) [Section 2(a)]: 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 person to
such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.
 Acceptance [Section 2(b)]: When the person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent
there to, the proposal is said to be accepted.
 Promise [Section 2(b)]: A Proposal when accepted becomes a promise. In simple words, when
an offer is accepted it becomes promise.
 Promisor and promise [Section 2(c)]: When the proposal is accepted, the person making the
proposal is called as promisor and the person accepting the proposal is called as promisee.
 Consideration [Section 2(d)]: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other
person has done or abstained from doing something or does or abstains from doing something
or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a
consideration for the promise. Consideration is actually the price paid by the one party for the
promise of the other. Technically it is termed as “QUID PRO QUO” i.e. something in return.
 Agreement [Section 2(e)]: Every promise and set of promises forming the consideration for
each other.
 Contract [Section 2(h)]: An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
 Void agreement [Section 2(g)]: An agreement not enforceable by law is void.
 Voidable contract [Section 2(i)]: An agreement is a voidable contract if it is enforceable by law

at the option of one or more of the parties there to (i.e. the aggrieved party), and it is not
enforceable by law at the option of the other or others.
 Void contract [Section 2(j)]: A contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void
when it ceases to be enforceable.
4
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT
There are two basic essential elements of a contract-

 An agreement
 Its enforceability by law
These two components together constitute the basis for a contract and are explained as follows:
AGREEMENT Agreement has been defined in Section 2(e) as "every promise or every set of promises
forming the consideration for each other" Further, promise is defined in Section 2 (b) as, "a proposal
when accepted become a promise."
In other words, an agreement consists of a proposal or an offer by one party and its acceptance by
the other party. It also implies that the parties have a common intention about the subject-matter of
their agreement. Two parties must be thinking of the same thing in the same sense. Thus agreement is
the outcome of two consenting minds i.e. 'consensus ad idem'.
WHAT IS ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTRACT??
Agreements are two types-

 Unenforceable agreement
 Enforceable agreement
All agreements to become a contract must give rise to legal obligations. In other words, the
parties to an agreement must be bound to perform their promises and in case of default by either of
them, must intend to sue and be sued. On the other hand, all those agreements are said to be
unenforceable in which an aggrieved party cannot go to a law court and that is left at the mercy of the
parties only. It is a gentleman's promise which may or may not be fulfilled by the promisor.
All these agreement remain only an agreement between the parties and they never become a
contract in the eyes of law, because they are merely social, domestic or moral arrangements, which lack
a basic intention to create legal relations. All those agreements are said to be enforceable in which the
aggrieved party has a right to approach a law court to get the agreement enforced and the other party is
held liable either to perform the agreement or to face the consequence for breach of that agreement.
Usually it is a legal presumption that all commercial agreements do have a basic intention to create a
legal relationship and therefore they are enforceable at law. All these agreement which are enforceable
at law are contracts.
This also implies that unenforceable agreements remain agreements only and cannot be converted
into a valid contract and only enforceable agreements are converted into a valid contract. Therefore we
can conclude that: “All contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contracts.” An
agreement, to be enforceable by law, must possess the essential elements of a valid contract as
contained in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act.
According to Section 10, “All agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of
the parties, competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not
expressly declared to be void.”
5
Simplifying the same, all agreements are contracts, if they are made–
 by free consent of the parties,
 competent to contract,
 for a lawful consideration
 with a lawful object, and
 not hereby expressly declared to be void
Along with the elements mentioned under Section 10 there are certain other basic elements of a
valid contract which may be mentioned as follows -
1. Proper Offer and Acceptance: There must be at least two parties- one making the offer and the
other accepting it. Such offer and acceptance must be valid. An offer to be valid must fulfill certain
conditions, such as it must intend to create legal relations, its terms must be certain and
unambiguous, it must be communicated to the person to whom it is made, etc. An acceptance to be
valid must fulfill certain conditions, such as it must be absolute and unqualified, it must be made in
the prescribed manner and it must be communicated by an authorized person before the offer
lapses.
2. Intention to Create Legal Relationship: The requirement of intention to create legal relations in
contract law is aimed at sifting out cases which are not really appropriate for court action. Not
every agreement leads to a binding contract which can be enforced through the courts. For
example you may have an agreed to take a friend for a movie or for dinner. You may have a moral
duty to honour that agreement but not a legal duty to do so. This is because in general the parties
to such agreements do not intend to be legally bound and the law seeks to mirror the party's
wishes. In order to determine which agreements are legally binding and have an intention to
create legal relations, the law draws a distinction between social, moral, domestic and religious
agreements and agreements made in a commercial context. There must be an intention among the
parties to create a legal relationship. In case of social or domestic agreements, the usual
presumption is that the parties do not intend to create legal relationship but in commercial or
business agreements, the usual presumption is that the parties intend to create legal relationship
unless otherwise agreed upon.
Example: X invited Y to a dinner Y accepted the invitation. It is a social agreement. If X fails to

serve dinner to Y, Y cannot go to the courts of law for enforcing the agreement. Similarly, if Y fails
to attend the dinner, X cannot go to the courts of law for enforcing the agreement.
RELEVANT CASES ON THIS POINT:

 Rose & Frank Co. v. Crompton Bros. (1925)
 Balfour v. Balfour (1919)
3. Capacity of Parties: As per the requirement of Sec. 10, the parties to an agreement must be
competent to contract. In other words, they must be capable or competent to enter into a contract.
If either of the parties does not have the capacity to contract, the contract is not valid. According to
Section 11 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, “Every person is competent to contract who is of the age
of majority according to the law to which he is subject and who is of sound mind and is not
disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.” Therefore, other way round,
following persons are incompetent to contract-
(a) Minors,
6
(b) Persons of unsound mind, and

(c) Persons disqualified by law to which they are subject.
So, the person to be competent to contract must be major, must be of sound mind and
must not be declared disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. If the parties
to agreement are not competent to contract, then no valid contract comes into existence.
RELEVANT CASE: Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghosh (Landmark case on minor’s contract. Minor’s
contract has been held as void ab initio.)
4. Lawful Consideration: An agreement must be supported by lawful consideration. Consideration

means something in return. In the words of Pollock, "Consideration is the price for which the
promise of another is bought." Consideration is known as quid pro-quo i.e. something in return.
Contract Act not only requires a consideration rather it prescribes for a lawful consideration. Now,
what constitutes a lawful consideration has been explained under Section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, according to which, “The consideration is considered lawful unless it is
forbidden by law or is of such a nature that if permitted would defeat the provisions of any
law, or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or is
immoral or is opposed to public policy.”
Example: A agrees to sell his car to B for Rs.1,00,000. Here B’s promise to pay Rs.1,00,000 is the
consideration for A’s promise to sell the car and A’s promise to sell the car is the consideration for
B’s promise to pay Rs.1,00,000.
5. Lawful Object: The object of an agreement must be lawful. According to Section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, “the object is considered lawful unless-
o it is forbidden by law;
o it is of such nature that if permitted it would defeat the provision of any law;
o it is fraudulent;
o it involves an injury to the person or property of any other;
o the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.”
Example: X, Y and Z enter into an agreement for the division among them of gains acquired or to
be acquired by them by fraud. The agreement is void because its object is unlawful.
6. Free Consent: There must be free consent of the parties to the contact. Free consent of all the
parties to a contract is one of the essential elements of a valid contract as per requirement of
Section 10. The parties to a contract should have identity of minds. This is called consensus ad
idem in English Law. Consent has been defined under Sec. 13 of the Contract Act as follows-
“Two or more person are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same
sense” (consensus ad idem). It means that there is no contract if the parties have not agreed upon
the same thing in the same sense.
Further, Contract Act requires not only consent but a free consent. According to Section 14,
consent is said to be free when it is not caused by-
o Coercion, or
o Undue influence, or
o Fraud, or
o Misrepresentation, or
7
o Mistake.
A contract which is valid in all other respects may still fail because there is no real consent to it by
one or both of the parties.
7. Agreement not expressly declared void: The agreement must not have been expressly declared
void under the provisions of Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (For example-
Agreements in restraint of trade, marriage, legal proceedings and agreement by way of wager have
been expressly declared as void under the Act itself.
Example: X promised to marry none else except Y and in default pay her Rs.1,00,000. X married Z
and Y sued X for the recovery of Rs.1,00,000. It was held that Y was not entitled to recover
anything because this agreement was in restraint of marriage and as such void.
8. Certainty of meaning: The terms of the agreement must be certain and unambiguous. According
to Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “Agreements the meaning of which is not certain
or capable of being made certain are void.”
9. Possibility of Performance: The terms of the agreement must be such as are capable of
performance. If the act is impossible in itself, physically or legally, it cannot be enforced at law.
According to Section 56, “An agreement to do an impossible act is void.”
Example: X agrees with Y to discover treasure by magic and Y agrees to pay Rs 1,000 to X. This
agreement is void because it is an agreement to do an impossible act. Example II: X agrees with Y
to enclose some area between two parallel lines and Y agrees to pay Rs 1,000 to X. This agreement
is void because it is an agreement to do an impossible act.
10. Legal Formalities must be complete: The agreement must comply with the necessary formalities
as to writing, registration, stamping etc., if any required in order to make it enforceable by law.
An oral contract is a perfectly valid contract, expect in those cases where writing, registration etc.
is required by some statute. In India, writing is required in cases of sale, mortgage, lease and gift of
immovable property, negotiable instruments, memorandum and articles of association of a
company, etc. Registration is required in cases of documents falling within the scope of Section 17
of the Registration Act.
Example: An oral agreement for arbitration is unenforceable because the law requires that
arbitration agreement must be in writing.
CLASSIFICATION OF CONTRACTS
ON THE BASIS OF ON THE BASIS OF ON THE BASIS OF

CREATION OR VALIDITY OR EXECUTION OR ON THE BASIS
FORMATION ENFORCEABILITY PERFORMANCE OF LIABILITY
A. On the basis of creation or formation-
8
1. Express Contracts: An express contract is one entered into by words which may be either
spoken or written. Where the proposal and acceptance is made in words, it is an express
contract.
Example 1: A says to B, “Will you buy my furniture for Rs. 50,000?” B says to A, “I am ready to
buy your car for Rs. 50,000.” It is an express contract made orally.
Example 2: A writes a letter to B, I offer to sell my furniture to you for Rs. 50,000.” B send a
letter to A, “I am ready to buy your furniture for Rs. 50,000.” It is an express contract made in
writing.
2. Implied Contracts: Where the proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, it is an
implied contract. Implied contract can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the
conduct of the parties who made them.
Example: A, a coolie in uniform picks up the baggage of B to carry it from railway platform to
the taxi without being asked by B to do so and B allows it. In this case there is an implied offer
by the coolie and an implied acceptance by the passenger. Now, there is an implied contract
between the coolie and the passenger and the passenger is bound to pay for the services of the
coolie.
3. Quasi Contracts or constructive contracts: It is contract in which there is no intention on

either side to make a contract, but the law imposes a contract. In such a contract, rights and
obligations arise not by any agreement between the parties but by operation of law. Thus, a
finder of lost goods is under an obligation to find out the true owner and return the goods.
Similarly, where certain goods are delivered to a wrong addressee, the addressee is under an
obligation either to pay for them or return them.
4. E. Com. Contracts/Contracts over Internet: These contracts are entered into between the
parties using internet. In electronic commerce, different parties/persons create network which
are linked to other network through EDI (Electronic Data Inter-change). This helps in doing
business transactions using electronic mode.
B. On the basis of validity or enforceability-
1. Valid Contract: An agreement enforceable at law is a valid contract as per Sec. 2(h). An
agreement becomes a contract when all the essentials of a valid contract as laid down in Section
10 are fulfilled.
2. Void Contract [Sec. 2(j)]: The term ‘Void contract’ is a contradiction in terms. But according to
Section 2(j), “A contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void when it ceases
to be enforceable” In other words, a void contract is a contract which was valid and legally
enforceable when entered into but which subsequently became void due to supervening or
subsequent impossibility of performance, change of law or some other reason.
3. Void Agreements: According to Section 2(g), "An agreement which is not enforceable by law
by either of the parties is void." Such agreements are void ab initio i.e. they are unenforceable
from the very inception. No legal rights or obligations can arise out of a void agreement. For
example an agreement without consideration or with a minor is a void agreement. A void
agreement never matures into a contract.
9
4. Voidable Contract: According to Section 2(i), "An agreement which is enforceable by law at
the option of one or more of the parties thereto but not at the option of the other or others
is a voidable contract." Note that the word used here is 'contract' and not just 'agreement'.
This is the result of absence of free consent in the contract. The consent is said to be not free
when it was obtained by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. The
other party who although took a consent cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud
because this is a judicial principle that "He who comes into equity (i.e. before law) must come
with clean hands." Thus, a voidable contract is one which can be set aside or repudiated or
avoided at the option of that aggrieved party whose consent was not free. Also, a voidable
contract is valid and enforceable until it is repudiated (i.e. avoided) by the party entitled to
avoid it.
[NOTE: As per Section 64 of the Contract Act, in case of a voidable contract, if the aggrieved party
decides to repudiate the contract, the party rescinding the contract must restore the benefit received by
him under the contract to the person from whom the benefit was received and the other party is freed
from his oligation to perform the contract. This is called “RESTITUTION”]
5. Unenforceable Contract: It is contract which is otherwise valid, but cannot be enforced

because of some technical defects like absence of a written form or absence of a proper stamp.
Such contracts cannot be proved in court. But, such contracts can be enforced if the technical
defect involved is removed.
Example: An oral agreement for arbitration is unenforceable because the law requires that an
arbitration agreement must be in writing. If the oral agreement for arbitration is reduced to
writing, it will become enforceable.
6. Illegal Agreements: An illegal agreement is one the object of which is unlawful, or is prohibited
by law or otherwise against the policy of law. Such agreements cannot be enforced by law.
Illegal agreements are always void ab initio. Thus, a contract to commit dacoity is an illegal
agreement and cannot be enforced at law.
 EFFECT ON COLLATERAL AGREEMENT: In case of illegal agreements, even the collateral

agreements become void. Although an illegal agreement should be distinguished from a void
contract. All illegal agreements are void but all void agreements or contracts are not
necessarily illegal. Every void agreement is not illegal unless its object or consideration is
immoral, or opposed to public policy etc. A void contract does not affect collateral or a parallel
contract.
C. On the basis of execution or performance-
1. Executed contracts: An executed contract is one where both the parties have performed their
respective obligations under the contract and nothing remains to be done by either party.
Example: A offers to sell his bike to B for Rs. 15,000. B accepts A’s offer. A delivers his bike to B
and B pays Rs. 15,000 to A. It is an executed contract.
2. Executory Contract: Where the contract is yet to be performed either wholly or partially or one
or both parties have yet to perform their obligation, the contract is executory contract.
Example: A offers to sell his bike to B for Rs. 15,000. B accepts A’s offer. If the bike has not yet
been delivered by A and the price has not yet been paid by B, it is an executory contract.
10
3. Partly Executed and Partly Executory Contract: It is a contract where one of the parties to the
contract has fulfilled his obligation and the other party has still to perform his obligation.
Example: A offers to sell his bike to B for Rs. 15,000 on a credit of one month. B accepts A’s
offer. A delivers his bike to B. Here,the contract is executed as to A and executory as to B.
D. On the basis of liability-
1. Unilateral Contracts: A unilateral contract is one in which a promise on one side is exchanged
for an act on the other side. A contract is said to be unilateral where one party has discharged
his obligation either before or at time of entering into contract.
2. Bilateral Contracts: These are the contract where a promise on one side is exchanged for a
promise on the part of the other party.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID AGREEMENT AND VOID CONTRACT
BASIS OF VOID AGREEMENT VOID CONTRACT

DISTINCTION
1. DEFINITION An agreement not enforceable by A contract which cases to be enforceable by
law is said to be void. [Sec. 2(g)] law becomes void when it ceases to be
enforceable [Sec. 2(j)]
2. TIME WHEN It is void from the very beginning. It becomes void subsequently due to change in
BECOMES VOID (void ab initio) law or change in circumstances.
Generally no restitution is Restitution may be granted when the contract
3. RESTITUTION granted, however, the Court may is discovered to be void or becomes void.
on equitable grounds grant
restitution in case of fraud or
misrepresentation.
4. DESCRIPTION Such agreements have been There is no mention of cases of void contracts
IN THE ACT mentioned as void in the Act. in the Act. They are created by circumstances
Agreements without and law Courts decide whether they have
consideration, agreements with become void or not.
unlawful object or consideration
and some other agreements have
expressly been declared to be
void.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID AGREEMENT AND VOIDABLE CONTRACT
BASIS OF VOID AGREEMENT VOIDABLE CONTRACT

DISTINCTION
1. DEFINITION & An agreement not enforceable A contract enforceable by law at the option
ENFORCEA- by law is said to be void. It of the aggrieved party is a voidable contract.
BILITY cannot be enforced by any It continues to be enforceable if the
party. It is a nullity and hence aggrieved party does not repudiate the
does not exist in the eye of law. contract.
11
2. PERIOD OF It is void from the beginning i.e. It is valid till it is avoided (or rescinded) by
VALIDITY void ab initio the aggrieved party to the contract.
Status of void agreement does Status of such contract change when the
3. CHANGE IN not change with the change in aggrieved party elects to avoid or rescind it
STATUS circumstances. within a reasonable time. It becomes void
when the aggrieved party elects to rescind it.
An agreement is void because A contract is voidable when the consent of
an essential element of a valid the party is caused by coercion or undue
4. CAUSES contract (other than free influence or fraud or misrepresentation.
consent) is missing. Reasons
may be that it was made with
incompetent parties or for
unlawful objects and
consideration, or without
consideration, or it is expressly
declared to be void under the
law.
The party obtaining goods The party obtaining goods under voidable
5. TRANSFER OF under void agreement cannot agreement can transfer a good title to the
TITLE transfer a good title to the third third party if the third party obtains it in
party. good faith and for consideration and the
aggrieved party has not avoided the contract
before such transfer.
Parties do not have right to Generally, right for restitution is available if

restore the benefits passed on the party elects to avoid the contract.
6. RESTITUTION to the other unless the parties
were unaware of the
impossibility of performance at
the time of agreement or the
party to the agreement was
minor.
No party has a right to get If a party rightfully rescinds (i.e. puts and
7. DAMAGES compensation for damages end) the contract, he can claim
because such agreement has no compensation, he can claim compensation of
legal effect. damages sustained by him due to non-
fulfillment of the promise.
12
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID CONTRACT & VOIDABLE CONTRACT
BASIS OF VOID CONTRACT VOIDABLE CONTRACT

DISTINCTION
1. DEFINITION A contract which ceases to A contract which is enforceable by law at the
be enforceable by law option of the aggrieved party is a voidable
become void, when it ceases contract.
to be enforceable.[Sec.2(j)]
2. PERIOD OF It remains valid till it does It remains valid if the aggrieved party does not
VALIDITY not cease to be enforceable. elect to avoid it within a reasonable time.
3. WILL OF THE Its validity is not affected by Its validity is affected by the will of the aggrieved
PARTY the will of any party. It is party. Aggrieved party has option to treat it either
decided by the law Court. binding or repudiate it.
4. CAUSES Contracts become void due Contract is voidable when the consent of the party
to change in circumstances is caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud or
or in the law of land. misrepresentation. Sometimes, it may be voidable
under the provisions of the Sections 39, 53 and 55.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID AND ILLEGAL AGREEMENT
BASIS OF VOID AGREEMENT ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

DISTINCTION
1. DEFINITION An agreement not enforceable by An agreement which is expressly or
law is void. impliedly prohibited by law is
illegal.
2. EFFECT ON The agreement collateral to the void The agreement collateral to an
COLLATERAL agreement is not necessarily void. illegal agreement is always void.
AGREEMENT
All void agreements need not All illegal agreements are void.
3. SCOPE necessarily be illegal agreements.
Hence, the scope is wider than that
of the illegal agreements.
The Court may grant restitution of Restitution of money is not granted
4. RESTITUTION money advanced if is minor or if the in case of an illegal agreement.
parties were unaware of the
impossibility of performance of the
agreement.
13
PROPOSAL/OFFER
To form an agreement, there must be at least two elements– one offer and the other acceptance. Offer
or proposal is the starting point in the formation of an agreement. The word proposal is synonymous
with the English word ‘offer’. Thus offer is the foundation of any agreement.
As per Sec 2(a) of Indian Contract Act-

“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.”
Observing the above definition, a proposal involves the following essential elements-
 It must be made by one person to another person. In other words, there cannot be a proposal by
a person to himself.
 It must be an expression of readiness or willingness to do (i.e. a positive act) or to abstain from
doing something (i.e. a negative act)
 It must be made with a view to obtain the consent of that other person to proposed act or
abstinence.
The person who makes an offer is called “Offeror” or “Promisor” and the person to whom the offer is
made is called the “Offeree” or “Promisee”
HOW AN OFFER IS MADE: An offer may be either express or implied. An express offer is one which is
made by words either spoken or written such as letter, telegram, telex, fax messages, e-mail or through
internet. An implied offer is one which may be gathered from the conduct of the party or the
circumstances of the case.
LEGAL RULES AS TO VALID OFFER
1. Offer must be communicated to the offeree: The offer is completed only when it has been
communicated to the offeree. Until the offer is communicated, it cannot be accepted. Thus, an
offer accepted without its knowledge, does not confer any legal rights on the acceptor. Offer
must be made with a view to obtaining the assent of the other party. An offer must be
distinguished from mere expression of intention. [Harris v. Nickerson (1873)]
In Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913), A’s nephew has absconded from his home. He
sent his servants to trace his missing nephew. When the servant had left, A afterwards
announced that anybody who discovered the missing boy would be given the reward of Rs.500.
The servant discovered the missing boy without knowing about the reward. When the servant
came to know about the reward, he brought an action against A to recover the same. But his
action failed. It was held that the servant was not entitled to the reward because he did not
know about the offer when the discovered the missing boy.
2. Special terms of the offer must also be communicated: If the special terms of the offer are not
communicated, the offeree will not be bound by those terms. This question of special terms
generally arises in case of standard form of contracts.
14
3. The offer must be certain, definite and unambiguous: No contract can come into existence if
the terms of the offer are vague or loose and indefinite. Both the parties should be clear about
the contract, its terms and the legal consequences that may follow in a particular contract.
Sec.29 of Contract Act provides “a contract the terms of which is not certain and is not
capable of being made certain is void for uncertainty”
Example: A offered to sell to B. ‘a hundred tons of oil’. The offer is uncertain as there is nothing
to show what kind of oil is intended to be sold.
4. The offer must be capable of creating legal relation: The offeror must intend the creation of
legal relations. He must intend that if his offer is accepted a legally binding agreement shall
result. A social, moral or domestic agreement without any intention to create legal relation is
not a contract because the presumption is that parties do not intend legal consequences to
follow from breach of contract. For example, A invited B to a dinner and B accepted the
invitation. It is a mere social invitation. And A will not be liable if he fails to provide dinner to B.
5. Offer may be express and implied: The offer may be express or implied. An offer which is
expressed by words, written or spoken/oral, is called an express offer. The offer which is
expressed otherwise than in words i.e. by conduct, is called an implied offer [Section 9].
6. An offer may be conditional: An offer can be made subject to a condition. In that case, the offer
can be accepted only subject to that condition. A conditional offer lapses when the condition is
not accepted.
7. Communication of offer must be complete and acceptance of such original offer only can
make a contract i.e. a counter offer if made in place of acceptance will result in the lapse of
the original offer:
Example: A offered to sell his pen to B for Rs.100. B replied, “I am ready to pay Rs.90. On A’s
refusal to sell at this price, B agreed to pay Rs.100. Held, there was not contract as the
acceptance to buy it for Rs.90 was a counter offer, i.e. rejection of the offer of A. Subsequent
acceptance to pay Rs.100 is a fresh offer from B to which A was not bound go give his
acceptance. This is called a counter offer and a counter offer amounts to rejection or lapse of the
original offer after which original offer cannot be accepted.
8. Cross offer do not conclude a contract: Where two parties make identical offers to each other,
in ignorance of each others offer, the offers are known as cross-offers and neither of the two can
be called an acceptance of the other and, therefore, there is no contract.
9. An offer must not thrust or put the burden of acceptance on the offeree: Offer should not
contain a term the non-compliance of which would amount to acceptance. One cannot say while
making the offer that if the offer is not accepted before a certain date, it will be presumed to
have been accepted. Moreover, acceptance cannot be presumed from silence. Acceptance is
valid only if it is communicated to the offeror.
Example: A writes to B, “I offer to sell my house for Rs. 40000. If I do not receive a reply by next
Monday, I shall assume that you have accepted the offer.” There will be no contract if B does not
reply.
10. An invitation to offer is not an offer: An offer must be distinguished from an invitation to
offer. In the case of an “invitation to offer” the aim is merely to circulate information of
15
readiness to negotiate business with anybody who on such information comes to the person
sending it. Such invitations are not offer in the eyes of law and do not become promises on
acceptance.
Example: Menu card of restaurants, price-tags attached with the goods displayed in any
showroom or supermarket is an invitation to proposal/offer and not an offer in itself. If the
salesman or the cashier does not accept the price, the interested buyer cannot compel him to
sell, if he wants to buy it, he must make a proposal. Similarly, job or tender advertisement
inviting applications for a job or inviting tenders is an invitation to an offer. An advertisement
for auction sale is merely an invitation to make an offer and not an offer for sale. Therefore, an
advertisement of an auction can be withdrawn without any notice. The persons going to the
auction cannot claim for loss of time and expenses if the advertisement for auction is
withdrawn.
KINDS OF OFFER/PROPOSAL
1. Express offer- When the offeror is expressly communicated by the offeror by words, spoken or
written, the offer is said to be an express offer.
2. Implied offer– When the offer is not communicated expressly rather an offer may be implied from
the conduct of the parties or the circumstances of the case, it is said to be an implied offer.
3. Specific offer- It means an offer made to a particular person or to a group of persons. A specific
offer can be accepted only by that person to whom it is made and communication of acceptance is
necessary in case of specific offer.
4. General offer- It means on offer which is made to the public in general. General offer can be
accepted by anyone. If offeree fulfills the term and condition which is given in offer then offer is
said to be accepted. Communication of acceptance is not necessary is case of general offer. Mere
compliance with the terms of the offer gives rise to a contract. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company Limited (1893), the Company advertised that a reward of $100 would be given to any
person who would suffer from influenza after using the medicine (Smoke balls) made by the
company according to the printed directions. One lady, Mrs. Carlill, purchased and used the
medicine according to the printed directions of the company but suffered from influenza. She filed
a suit to recover the reward of Rs.100. The court held that there was a contract as she had accepted
a general offer by using the medicine in the prescribed manner and as such she is entitled to
recover the reward from the company.
5. Cross offer- When two parties exchange identical offers in ignorance at the time of each other’s
offer, the offer’s are called cross offer. A contract comes into existence when any of the parties,
accept the cross offer made by the other party.
6. Counter offer- When the offeree gives a qualified or conditional acceptance of the offer i.e. an
acceptance subject to modifications and variations in the terms of original offer, he is said to make
a counter offer. In other words, an offer made by the offeree in return of the original offer is called
as a counter offer. A counter offer amounts to rejection of the original offer.
7. Standing, open and continuous offer- An offer which is allowed to remain open for acceptance
over a period of time is known as standing, open or continuous offer. Tender for supply of goods is
16
a kind of standing offer. For example, when we ask the newspaper vendor to supply the newspaper
daily, in such case, we do not repeat our offer daily and the newspaper vendor supplies the
newspaper to us daily. The offers of such types are called standing offers.
8. Standard form of contract- In commercial transactions, usually parties do not intent to negotiate
the terms of contract at every occasion. And therefore, the institutions such as banks, insurance
policy departments etc. design a standard document to be signed with every person who intends
to avail services from such institutions. Such documents are called Standard form of contracts.
LAPSE OF OFFER/MODES OF REVOCATION OF OFFER (SECTION 6)
An offer should be accepted before it lapses (i.e. comes to an end). An offer may come to an end in any
of the following ways stated in Section 6 of the Indian Contract Act:
1. By communication of notice of revocation: An offer may come to an end by communication of
notice of revocation by the offeror. It may be noted that an offer can be revoked only before its
acceptance is complete for the offeror. In other words, an offeror can revoke his offer at any time
before he becomes before bound by it. Thus, the communication of revocation of offer should reach
the offeree before the acceptance is communicated.
2. By lapse of time: An offer lapse-

a) If either offeror or offeree dies before acceptance.
b) If it is not accepted within-
o The specific time, or
o A reasonable time, if not time is specified
Where time is fixed for the acceptance of the offer, and it is not acceptance within the fixed
time, the offer comes to an end automatically on the expiry of fixed time. Where no time for
acceptance is prescribed, the offer has to be accepted within reasonable time. The offer lapses if it
is not accepted within that time. The term ‘reasonable time’ will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
3. By failure to accept condition precedent: Where, the offer requires that some condition must be
fulfilled before the acceptance of the offer, the offer lapses, if it is accepted without fulfilling the
condition.
4. By the death or insanity of the offeror: Where, the offeror dies or becomes, insane, the offer
comes to an end if the fact of his death or insanity comes to the knowledge of the acceptor before
he makes his acceptance. But if the offer is accepted in ignorance of the fact of death or insanity of
the offeror, the acceptance is valid. This will result in a valid contract, and legal representatives of
the deceased offeror shall be bound by the contract. On the death of offeree before acceptance, the
offer also comes to an end by operation of law.
5. By counter offer by the offeree: Where a counter offer is made by the offeree, the original offer
automatically comes to an end, as the counter offer amounts to rejection of the original offer.
6. By not accepting the offer, according to the prescribed or usual mode: Where some manner of
acceptance is prescribed in the offer, the offeror can revoke the offer if it is not accepted according
to the prescribed manner.
17
7. By rejection of offer by the offeree: Where the offeree rejects the offer, the offer comes to an end.
Once the offeree rejects the offer, he cannot revive the offer by subsequently attempting to accept
it. The rejection of offer may be express or implied.
8. By change in law: Sometimes, there is a change in law which makes the offer illegal or incapable of
performance. In such cases also, the offer comes to an end.
18
ACCEPTANCE
Acceptance is defined under Sec. 2(b) of Indian Contract act:
“When the person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent there to, the proposal is
said to be accepted.”
Alike a proposal, an acceptance may also be express or implied. When acceptance is made by
words, spoken or written, it is an express acceptance. If it is accepted by conduct, it is an implied
acceptance. Thus where a person boards a train or bus, he impliedly accepts to pay the usual fare.
Who may accept?

An offer can be accepted only by the person to whom the offer is made. It cannot be
accepted by another person without the consent of the person making it. Specific answer to this
question may be given with reference to type of offer-
(a) In case of specific offer- Can be accepted only by the person to whom that offer was made.
(b) In case of General offer- An offer made to the world at large or public in general (called general
offer) can be accepted by any person having knowledge of the offer by fulfilling the terms of the
offer.
How to make acceptance?

Like an offer, an acceptance may also be either ‘express acceptance’ i.e. by words, oral or written
or ‘implied acceptance’ i.e. otherwise than by words which means by conduct.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID ACCEPTANCE
1. Acceptance must be absolute and unconditional: As per Sec. 7(1), an acceptance must be
unconditional and unqualified. Accepting an offer with conditions, variations and reservations
amounts to a counter offer and rejection of the original offer. The acceptor must comply with the
terms of the offer. A variations or alteration, however, small of the offer, will make the acceptance
invalid.
2. Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror: If the offeror remains silent and does nothing
to show that he has accepted the offer, no contract is formed. The acceptor should do something to
signify his intention to accept. Thus, where a person accepts an offer but fails to post the letter of
acceptance, it is no acceptance.
3. Acceptance must be within a reasonable time: Acceptance to be valid must be made within the
time allowed by the offeror and if no time is specified, it must be made within a reasonable time.
4. It must be according to the mode prescribed or usual or reasonable mode: As per Sec. 7(2), if
the proposal does not prescribe the manner in which it is to be accepted, then the offer must be
accepted in some usual and reasonable manner. And if the proposal prescribes the manner in
which it is to be accepted then the offer must be accepted in the prescribed manner only, within a
reasonable time. Acceptance should be exactly made as is demanded by the offeror. This is also
called “mirror image rule.”
19
Consequence of not accepting the offer in the prescribed manner- If the offer is not accepted in
the prescribed manner then the offerer may approve or reject such acceptance. Ones such a
deviated acceptance is communicated to offerer, he may insist that the acceptance must be made in
the manner prescribed. If the offere wants to reject such acceptance, he must inform the acceptor
within a reasonable time that he is not bound by the acceptance because it is not in the prescribed
manner. Failure on the part of the offeror to do so will imply that he has accepted the acceptance
although it is not in the desired manner.
5. The acceptor must be aware of the proposal at the time of the offer: Acceptance follows offer. If
the acceptor is not aware of the existence of the offer and conveys his acceptance, no contract
comes into being.
6. Acceptance must be given before the offer lapses or before the offer is revoked: It means that
acceptance must be made within the offer is in force i.e. before the offer has been revoked or offer
has lapsed.
7. Acceptance cannot be implied from silence: Offer should not contain a term the non-compliance
of which would amount to acceptance. One cannot say while making the offer if offeree remains
silent then acceptance shall be presumed from such silence. Silence is not permitted as a mode of
acceptance in law. Acceptance is valid only if it is communicated to the offeror.
GENERAL RULES AS TO COMMUNICATION OF OFFER, ACCEPTANCE AND REVOCATION
When parties are at a distance and the offer and acceptance are exchanged through post, rules are
contained in Sections 3 and 4.
1. Communication of proposal is complete- When it comes to the knowledge of the person to

whom it is made i.e. the offeree. In case an offer is made by post, its communication will be
complete when the letter containing the offer reaches the offeree.
2. Communication of acceptance is complete-The communication of acceptance is complete at

different times for the proposer and acceptor. The rules regarding the communication of
acceptance are as follows-
a) As against the proposer: As soon as a duly addressed letter of acceptance is put into
the course of transmission i.e. when the letter of acceptance is posted so as to be out of
reach of the acceptor, whether the same reaches the proposer or not. Thus, mere
posting of letter of acceptance is sufficient to conclude a contract. However, the letter
must be properly addressed and stamped. Where the letter of acceptance is posted by
the acceptor but it never reaches the offeror, or it is delayed in transit, it will not affect
the validity of acceptance. The offeror is bound by the acceptance.
b) As against the acceptor: As soon as the proposer receives the letter of acceptance.
[NOTE: The time gap between the date on which the letter of acceptance is posted and the date on
which the letter of acceptance is received by the proposer may be utilized by the acceptor to
withdraw or revoke his acceptance by a speedier mode of communication so that the revocation
notice reaches the proposer before the letter of acceptance.]
20
 ACCEPTANCE BY TELEPHONES TELEX OR FAX: Such contracts are treated on the same
principle as an oral agreement made between two parties when they are face to face with
each other. In such cases, the communication of acceptance is complete when the
acceptance is received or is heard by the offeror and not when it is transmitted by the
offeree. The contract is concluded as soon as the offeror receives or hears the acceptance.
Therefore, the acceptor must ensure that his acceptance is properly received by the
proposer.
 THE PLACE OF CONTRACT: In case of acceptance by the post, the place where the letter of
acceptance is posted is the place of contract. Where the acceptance is given by
instantaneous means of communication (telephone, fax, telex etc.), the contract is made at
the place where the acceptance is received or is heard.
COMMUNICATION OF REVOCATION OF OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE

The term ‘revocation’ means ‘taking back’ or ‘withdrawal’. Rules regarding revocation have been
incorporated under Sec. 5 of the Contract Act. The communication of a revocation is complete as against
the person who makes it when it is put into the course of transmission. As against the person to whom it is
made, when it comes to his knowledge.
Time limit for revocation of offer: A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of
its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. We know that communication of
acceptance is complete when a properly addressed and stamped letter of acceptance is duly posted by the
acceptor. Hence, an offer can be revoked at any time before the letter of acceptance is duly posted by the
acceptor. Thus, the proposer may revoke his offer by a speedier mode of communication which will reach
before the letter of acceptance is posted by the acceptor.
RULES REGARDING REVOCATION:

 Revocation must always be express.
 Revocation must move from the offerer/proposer himself or through a duly authorised agent
 Notice of revocation of a general offer must be given through the same channel by which the
original offer was made.
 Offer can be revoked even if the letter of acceptance is lost or delayed in transit.
Time limit for revocation of acceptance: According to Sec. 5, “An acceptance may be revoked at any
time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not
afterwards”
We know that communication of acceptance is complete as against the acceptor when the letter of
acceptance is actually received by the proposer. Hence, an acceptance can be revoked at any time before
the letter of acceptance is actually received by the proposer. Thus, the acceptor may revoke his acceptance
by a speedier mode of communication which will reach before the letter of acceptance is received by the
proposer.
21
The proposition relating to the revocation of proposal and acceptance has been described by
Anson in the following words-
“Acceptance is to offer what a lighted match is to a train of gunpowder.

It produces something which cannot be recalled or altered.”
Here, gunpowder is offer and lighted match is the acceptance. When a lighted match is shown to a
train of gunpowder, it explodes and something happens which cannot be undone. Similarly, an
offer once accepted cannot be revoked. However, acceptance can be revoked by resorting to some
quicker means of communication so that the offeror learns about such revocation before
acceptance.
SIMULTANEOUS DELIVERY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE AND

THE TELEGRAM CONTAINING REVOCATION OF ACCEPTANCE
In such cases, the formation of contract will depend upon the fact which one is read first by the
offeror. Generally, it is presumed that a man of ordinary prudence will first read the telegram and
therefore the revocation will be quite effective.
In case of contracts over telephone or telex or fax, the question of revocation does not arise
because there is instantaneous communication of the offer and its acceptance (i.e. the offer is made
and accepted at the same time.)
RELEVANT CASES ON ACCEPTANCE

 Lalman v. Gauridatta (1913)
 Adams v. Lindsell (1818)
 Bhagvandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Pursottamdas (1966)
 Powell v. Lee (1908)
 Felthouse v. Bindley 1863
 Harvey v. Facey (1893)
 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. (1952)
 MC Pherson v. Appanna (1951)
22
CONSIDERATION
Consideration is the foundation of every contract and also one of the essential elements thereof. The
law insists on the existence of consideration if a promise is to be enforced as creating legal obligations.
In the absence of consideration a promise or undertaking is purely gratuitous and therefore creates no
legal binding effect. Consideration must be of two directional nature. That means both parties should
get benefitted mutually. The term “consideration” means something in return i.e. quid pro quo. What
is ‘something’ has been explained by Justice Lush in a leading English case Currie v. Misa as follows-
“A valuable consideration in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right,
interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forebearance detriment, loss or
responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.”
Pollock has suggested that “consideration is the price for which the promise of the other is
bought and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.”
Consideration may be in the form of cash, goods, act or abstinence. A promise without
consideration is null and void. It is called a naked promise or "Nudum Pactum." Nudo pacto non oritur
actio, i.e. an agreement without consideration is void. Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act supports
this contention and provides that agreement without consideration is void.
Sec. 2(d) of the Indian Contract act, 1872 defines consideration as-
“When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or
abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing
something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.”
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A VALID CONSIDERATION
1. Consideration must move at desire of the promisor: An act or abstinence constitutiong

consideration must have been done at the desire of the promisor only. Any act performed at the
desire of the third party or without the desire of the promisor cannot be a valid consideration.
2. It may move from the promisee or any other person: An act constituting consideration may be
done by the promisee himself or any other person. Thus, it is immaterial who furnishes the
consideration & therefore may move from the promisee or any other person. This means that even
a stranger to the consideration can sue on a contract, provided he is a party to the contract
(Chinayya v. Ramayya)
3. Consideration may be of past, present or future:
a) Past Consideration: A consideration for the act done in past or which has already moved
before the formation of the agreement is a past consideration. Past consideration is valid in
Indian Contract Act, but past consideration is no consideration in English Law.
b) Present Consideration: When both the parties are ready to give consideration at the same
time or the consideration which moves simultaneously with the promise is a present
consideration.
23
c) Future Consideration: When a party promises to do or to abstain from doing something in

future, it is a future consideration. The consideration which is to be moved after the
formation of agreement is called future consideration.
4. Consideration need not to be adequate: As per the definition of consideration it simply indicates
that "something in return" is consideration which must actually be of some value in the eyes of
law, that ‘something’ can be adequate or grossly inadequate. Law only requires the presence of
some consideration in a valid contract; its adequacy is not required in law.
According to Explanation 2 of Sec. 25, an agreement to which the consent of the promisor
is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the inadequacy of
the consideration may be taken into account by the Court in determining the question whether the
consent of the promisor was freely given.
5. Consideration must be real: It should not be uncertain, illusory or impossible.
6. Consideration must be lawful: For a valid contract it is necessary that the consideration should be
lawful as according to Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act, otherwise it will become void and
unenforceable i.e. it must not be illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy.
7. Must be something other than the promisor’s existing obligation: Consideration must be
something which the promisor is not already bound to do because a promise to do what a promisor
is already bound to do adds nothing to the existing obligation.
RELEVANT CASELAWS ON CONSIDERATION-

 Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880)
 Kedar Nath v. Gouri Mohammed (1886)
 Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali (1914)
 Chinnaya v. Ramayya (1882)
 Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861)
A CONTRACT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION IS VOID
The general rule as laid down under Section 25 is “An agreement made without consideration is void”.
Every agreement to be enforceable at law must be supported by valid consideration. An agreement made
without consideration is void and is unenforceable except in certain cases. Sec. 25 & Sec. 185 specifies
exceptional cases where an agreement though made without consideration will be valid. These are as
follow:
1. Agreement made on account of natural love and affection [Sec. 25(1)]: An agreement though
made without consideration will be valid if it is in writing and registered and is made on account
of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other. An
agreement without consideration will be valid provided-
(a) It is expressed in writing;
(b) It is registered under the law for the time being in force;
(c) It is made on account of natural love and affection;
(d) It is between parties standing in a near relation to each other.
All these essentials must be present to enforce an agreement made without consideration.
2. Agreement made to compensate past services voluntarily rendered [Sec. 25(2)]: An

agreement made without consideration will be valid if it is a promise to compensate wholly or in
24
a part a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor or something which
the promisor was legally compellable to do. To apply this rule, the following essentials must exist:
(a) The act must have been done voluntarily;
(b) For the promisor or it must be something which was the legal obligation of the
promisor;
(c) The promisor must be in existence at the time when the act was done;
(d) The promisor must agree now to compensate the promisee.
3. Promise to pay a time-barred debt [Sec. 25(3)]: A promise to pay a time-barred debt is also
enforceable. But the promise must be in writing and be signed by the promisor or his agent
authorized in that behalf. The promise may be to pay the whole or part of the debt. An oral
promise to pay a time-barred debt is unenforceable.
4. Completed gifts [Exp. 1 to Sec. 25]: Explanation 1 to Section 25 provides that the rule 'No
consideration, No contract' shall not affect validity of any gifts actually made between the donor
and the donee. Thus if a person gives certain properties to another according to the provision of
the Transfer of Property Act, he cannot subsequently demand the property back on the ground
that there was no consideration.
5. Agency (Sec. 185, Indian Contract Act): There is one more exception to the rule. It is given in
section 185 which says that no consideration is needed to create an agency.
6. Guarantee (Sec 127, Indian Contract Act): A contract of guarantee is made without
consideration.
7. Remission (Sec 63): No consideration is required for an agreement to receive less then what is
due. This is called remission in the law.
DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONSIDERATION AND PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
The Indian law is different from the English law and the definition of consideration under the
Indian Contract Act clearly provides that consideration may move from the promisee or any other
person. So consideration may flow from a stranger to the contract as well. Under the English law the
consideration must move from the promisee only and not from a stranger, and a stranger to a
consideration cannot enforce it. This is known as “the principle of privity of contract”.
It means that as per privity of contract, a stranger to a contract cannot enforce that contract or
cannot sue on such contract. Only parties to a contract can sue each other or be sued upon. A stranger
to a contract can’t sue in England as well as in India though it may be for his benefit. Privity of contract
means the relationship subsisting between the parties to a contract.
Exception to this principle-

1. Trust: In case of trust a beneficiary can sue upon the contract. This exception to the rule of
Privity of contract has been recognised in a well known case of Khwaja Mohd. Khan v.
Hussaini Begum (1910)
2. Family settlement/Marriage contract: In case of family settlement members who were not
originally party to the contract can also sue upon it. A female member can enforce a provision
for marriage expenses made on partition of HUF.
25
In a case, two brothers, on partition of family joint properties, agreed to invest in equal
shares for their mother’s maintenance. It was held that the mother was entitled to require her
sons to make the investment.
3. Acknowledgement of liability: Where a person admits his liability thereafter if he refused, he

will be stopped from denying his liability.
4. Assignment of contract: Assignee (the person to whom benefits of contract are assigned) can
enforce upon the contract.
5. Contract entered into through an agent: A principal may sue under the contract entered into
by his agent on his behalf.
CAPACITY OF PARTIES TO CONTRACT
Meaning of Capacity to Contract: Capacity or competence to contract means legal capacity of parties
to enter into a contract. In other words, it is the capacity of parties to enter into a legally binding
contract.
WHO ARE COMPETENT TO CONTRACT
Every person is legally competent to contract if he fulfills the following three conditions-
1. He has attained the age of majority, according to the law to which he is subject;
2. He is of sound mind; and.
3. He is not disqualified from contracting by any other law to which he is subject.
1) MINORS: Any person, who has not attained the age of majority prescribed by law, is known as minor.
Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 prescribes the age limit for majority and says a minor is a
person who has not completed eighteen years of age. But the same Act also mentions that in the
following two cases a person attains majority only after he completes his age of twenty one years-
i. Where a Court has appointed guardian of a minor’s person or property or both (under the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890); or
ii. Where the minor’s property has been placed under the superintendence of a Court of
Wards.
2) PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND: According to Sec. 12 of Contract Act, 1872, person is said to be of
sound mind for the purpose of making a contract-
 if he is capable of understanding the terms of contract at the time of making it, and
 if he is capable of making a rational judgment as to the effect upon his interests.
 Types of Persons of Unsound Mind:

 Idiot
 Lunatic
 Delirious persons
 Drunken or intoxicated persons
 Hypnotized persons
 Mental decay
26
According to Sec. 12, “A person who is usually of unsound mind but occasionally of sound
mind may make a contract when he is of sound mind. And a person who is usually of sound mind
but occasionally of unsound mind may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind.”
3) PERSONS DISQUALIFIED BY OTHER LAWS: There are certain persons who are disqualified from
contracting by the other laws of our country. It refers to statutory disqualification imposed on certain
person in respect of their capacity to contract. They are as under:
 Alien enemy: An alien is a person who is a citizen of a foreign country. An alien may either be an
alien friend or an alien enemy. Aliens are generally competent to contract with citizens of the
India. He can maintain as action on a contract enter into by him during peace time. But if a war is
declared, an alien enemy cannot enter into a contract with the Indian citizen. Contract entered
into before the declaration of war are either stayed or terminated but contract made during the
wartime are absolutely unenforceable.
 Foreign sovereigns, diplomatic staff etc.: These persons are immune from the jurisdiction of
local courts, unless they voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction. These persons have a right to enter
into contract and enforce those contracts in our courts but they cannot be sued in our courts
without the sanction of the Central Government unless they choose to submit themselves to the
jurisdiction of our Courts. Rules regarding suits by or against foreign sovereigns are laid down in
Section 84 to 87 of Civil Procedure Code.
 Corporations and companies: A corporation is an artificial person as recognised by law. It exists

only in the eyes of law. It is competent to enter into a contract only through its agent. The
contractual capacity of a company is determined by the ‘object clause’ of its memorandum of
Association. The contractual capacity of statutory corporations is determined by the statute
creating it.
 Insolvents: When a person’s debts exceed his assets, he is adjudged insolvent and his property
stands vested in the Official Receiver or Official Assignee appointed by the Court. An insolvent
cannot enter into a contract as his property is vested in the official receiver or official assignee.
This disqualification of an insolvent is removed after he is discharged.
 Convicts: A convict while undergoing imprisonment in incapable of entering into a contract. But
this disability comes to an end on the expiry of the sentence.
 Married women: A woman is competent to enter into a contract. Marriage does not affect the
contractual capacity of a woman. She can even bind her husband in cases of pressing necessity. A
married woman may sue or be sued in her own name in respect of her separate property.
 Professional persons: Doctors and advocates are included in the class. In England barristers are
prohibited by the etiquettes of their profession from suing for their fees.
STATUS OR NATURE OF MINOR’S AGREEMENTS
A minor's agreement being void is wholly devoid of all effects. When there is no contract there
should be no contractual obligation on either side.
27
1) An agreement with or by minor is void: Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act requires that the
parties to a contract must be competent and Section 11 says that a minor is not a competent. But
neither section makes it clear whether the contract entered into by a minor is void or voidable. Till
1903, court in India were not unanimous on this point the privy council made it perfectly clear that
a minor is not competent to a contract and that a contract by minor is void ab initio. Minor’s
agreement is absolutely void from very beginning, i.e. void ab initio. It is nullity in the eye of law.
An agreement with minor, therefore, can never be enforced by law. The leading case on minor’s
contract is Mohri Bibi V. Dharmo Das Ghosh (1903)
2) No ratification: An agreement with the minor is completely void. A minor cannot ratify the
agreement even on attaining majority, because a void agreement cannot be ratified. A person who
is not competent to authorize an act cannot give it validity by ratifying.
3) Minor can be a promisee or beneficiary: If a contract is beneficial to a minor, it can be enforced

by him. There is no restriction on a minor from being a beneficiary, for example, being a payee or a
promisee in a contract. Thus a minor is capable of purchasing immovable property and he may sue
to recover the possession of the property upon tender of the purchase money. Similarly a minor in
whose favor a promissory note has been executed can enforce it.
4) No estoppel against a minor: Where a minor by misrepresenting his age has induced the other
party enter into a contract with him, he cannot be made liable on the contract. There can be no
estoppel against a minor. It means he is not estopped from pleading his infancy in order to avoid a
contract.
5) No specific performance except in certain cases: A minor's contract being absolutely void, there
cannot be a question of specific performance of such contract. A guardian of a minor cannot bind
the minor by an agreement for the purchase of immovable property; so the minor cannot ask for
the specific performance of the contract which the guardian had no power to enter into. But a
contract entered into by guardian or manager on minor's behalf can be specifically enforced if-
a. The contract is within the authority of the guardian or manager.
b. It is for the benefit of the minor.
6) Liability for torts: A tort is a civil wrong. A minor is liable in tort unless the tort in reality is a
breach of contract. But a minor cannot be made liable for a breach of contract by framing the
action on tort.
7) No insolvency: A minor cannot be declared insolvent as he is incapable of contracting; debts and

dues are payable from the personal properties of minor and he is not personally liable.
8) Partnership: A minor being incompetent to contract cannot be a partner in a partnership firm, but
under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act , he can be admitted to the benefits of partnership.
9) Minor can be an agent: A minor can act as an agent. But he will not to be liable to his principal for
his acts. A minor can draw, deliver and endorse negotiable instruments without himself being
liable.
28
10) Minor cannot bind parent or guardian: In the absence of authority, express or implied, an infant
is not capable of binding his parent or guardian, even for necessaries. The parents will be held
liable only when the child is acting as an agent for parents.
11) Joint contract by minor and adult: In such a case, the adult will be liable on the contract and not
the minor.
12) Surety for a minor: In a contract of guarantee when an adult stands for a minor then he (adult) is
liable to third party as there is direct contract between the surety and the third party.
13) Minor as shareholder: A minor, being incompetent to contract cannot be a shareholder of the
company. If by mistake he becomes a member, the company can rescind the transaction and
remove his name from register. But, a minor may, acting through his lawful guardian become a
shareholder by transfer or transmission of fully paid shares to him.
14) Liability for necessaries: The case of necessaries supplied to a minor or to any other person
whom such minor is legally bound to support is governed by Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act.
A claim for necessaries supplied to a minor is enforceable by law. But a minor not liable for any
price that he may promise and never for more than the value of the necessaries. There is no
personal liability of the minor, but only his property is liable.
29
FREE CONSENT
MEANING OF CONSENT: Consent simply means an act of assenting to an offer. According to Sec. 13,
“Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense”
In English law, this is called ‘consensus ad idem.’ Consent involves identity of minds in respect of the
subject-matter of the contract. When there is no consent at all, the agreement is void ab initio, i.e. it is
not enforceable at the option of either party.
MEANING OF FREE CONSENT: Free consent is one of the essential elements of a valid contract. Sec. 14
describes the cases when the consent is not free. This is a negative definition of free consent in the
sense that it mentions some negative elements, the presence of which in a contract would vitiate a
contract. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by-
 Coercion [Section 15]
 Undue influence [Section 16]
 Fraud [Section 17]
 Misrepresentation [ Section 18]
 Mistake [Section 20, 21,22]
If consent was caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation the contract is
voidable at the option of party whose consent was so taken [Sec. 19, 19A]
1) COERCION: Coercion simply means compelling or forcing a person to enter in to a contract under a
pressure or a threat. Sec. 15 defines coercion as, “Committing or threatening to commit, any act
forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any
property, to the prejudice of any person whatever with the intention of causing any person to
enter into an agreement”.
The essential elements of coercion are-
(a) Committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by Indian Penal Code.
(b) Unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property.
(c) The act of coercion may be directed at any person and not necessarily at the other party to
the agreement.
(d) The act of coercion must be done with the object of inducing or compelling any person to
enter into an agreement.
 Effect of threat to commit suicide- As such, a suicide and a threat to commit suicide are not
punishable under Indian Penal Code but an attempt to commit suicide is punishable under the IPC.
This does not mean that suicide and threat to commit suicide are permitted by IPC. The question
whether a threat to commit suicide amounts to coercion or not was considered by Madras High
Court in the case of Chikham Ammiraju v. Seshamma. Threat to commit suicide was held to be
amounting to coercion in this case.
 Effect or co-ercion [Sec. 19, 64, 72] - When coercion is employed to obtain the consent of a party
the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was obtained by coercion [Sec.
19]. When such aggrieved party exercises his option to treat the voidable contract as void, it is
called “rescinding a contract”. Further, as per Sec. 64, the party rescinding the contract shall
restore the benefit received by him under the contract, to the person from whom the benefit was
received. Also, the party to whom money has been paid or anything delivered under co-ercion,
must repay or return it [Sec. 72]
30
BURDEN/ONUS OF PROOF: The burden of proving that consent was obtained by coercion, and
the aggrieved party would not have entered into contract had coercion been employed, lies on the
party intending to avoid the contract.
2) UNDUE INFLUENCE: It is kind of moral or mental coercion. The term “undue influence” means
dominating the will of the other person to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
Sec. 16(1) defines undue influence as, “A contract is said to be induced by undue influence-
 Where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a
position to dominate the will of other and
 The dominant party uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.”
According to Sec. 16 (2), a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another
in the following circumstances-
(a) Where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other e.g., in the relationship
between master and servant, parent and child, Tax officer and assessee etc.
(b) Where he stands in fiduciary relation to the other. It implies a relationship of mutual
trust and confidence. Examples: A trustee and beneficiary, spiritual or religious adviser
(guru) and his disciple, solicitors and clients, guardian and ward etc.
(c) Where a contract is made with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or
permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. Example:
Medical attendant and patient.
According to judicial decisions held in various cases, there is no presumption of undue

influence in the following relationships-
(a) Husband and wife (other than pardanashin)
(b) Landlord and tenant
(c) Creditor and debtor
CONTRACTS WITH PARDANASHIN WOMAN: A woman who onserves complete seclusion (i.e.
who does not come in contact with people other than her family members) is called pardanashin
woman. There is a legal presumption that a contract with a pardanashin woman is induced by
undue influence. In such cases, the burden of proof completely lies on the person who enters into a
contract with a pardanashin woman and he will have to prove-
 That he made full disclosure of all the facts to her
 That she understood the contract and the implication of the contract on her interests.
 That she was in receipt of competent independent advice before entertaining into the contract.
 Effect of undue Influence: [Section 19A] When consent to an agreement is caused by undue
influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. Any
such contract may be set aside either absolutely or, if the party who was entitled to avoid it has
received any benefit thereunder, upon such terms and conditions as the court may seem just.
Burden of Proof: When a contract is avoided on the ground of undue influence, the liabilities of
the dominant party and the weaker party to prove are as under-
The weaker party ahs to prove-
a. That the other party was in a position to dominate the will
b. That the other party actually used his influence to obtain an unfair advantage
c. That the transaction is unconscionable (unreasonable)
31
In case of unconscionable transaction, the dominant party has to prove that such contract
was not induced by undue influence.
[NOTE: A transaction is said to be unconscionable if the dominant party makes an exorbitant profit
of the other’s distress.]
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COERCION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE
BASIS OF COERCION UNDUE INFLUENCE

DISTINCTION
1. DEFINITION Coercion is the committing or Undue influence is an influence which
threatening to commit, any act arises where the relations subsisting
forbidden by the I.P.C. or between the parties are such that one of
unlawful detaining or the parties is in a position to dominate the
threatening to detain any will of the other and uses that position to
property with the intention of obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
causing any person to enter
into an agreement.
2. RELATIONS In case of coercion, relation In case of undue influence, in the relation
between the parities is between the parties the parties must be
immaterial. such that one of them is in a position to
dominate the will of other.
3. INTENTION Coercion is applied with the It is exerted with the intention to obtain
intention of causing any person an unfair advantage over the other party.
to enter into an agreement.
4. NATURE OF It involves physical force. It involves moral force.
FORCE
5. KIND OF ACT It involves criminal act. It does not involve criminal act.
6. DIRECTION The coercion may be directed Under influence is used against the
against any person including a weaker party only.
stranger.
7. WHO CAN It can be exercised by any It is employed by the person who is in a
EXERCISE? person. Even a stranger to position to dominate the will of the other.
contract can exercise it.
8. REMEDIES A contract caused by coercion, In case of undue influence, the aggrieved
may be avoided by the party may avoided the contract or the
aggrieved party’s contract. Court, may set aside the contract
[Sec. 19] absolutely or conditionally. [Sec. 19 A]
The presumption of undue influence can be rebutted by showing-

 That the dominant party has made full disclosure of all the facts to the weaker party before
making the contract;
 That the price was adequate; and
 That the weaker party was in receipt of competent independent advice before entering into the
contract.
32
3) FRAUD: The term ‘fraud’ means a fake or false representation of facts made willfully with a view to
deceive the other party. Sec. 17 defines fraud as, any of the following acts committed by a party to
a contract (or with his connivance, or by his agent) with intent to deceive another party thereto (or
his agent) or to induce him to enter into the contract-
a) The suggestion that a fact is true when it is not true by a person who does not believe it be
true. Example: A sells to B locally manufactured goods as imported goods charging a
higher price, it amounts to fraud.
b) The active concealment of the fact by a person having knowledge or belief of the fact. Mere
concealment does not amount to fraud. But where steps are taken by a seller concealing
some material facts so that the buyer even after a reasonable examination cannot trace the
defects, it will amount to fraud.
Example: A, a furniture dealer, conceals the cracks in furniture sold by him by using some
packing material and polishing it in such a way that the buyer even after reasonable
examination cannot trace the defect, it would tentamount to fraud through active
concealment.
c) A promise made without any intention to perform it.

d) Any such act or omission as the law specifically declares to be fraudulent. Example: Under
Companies Act and Insolvency Acts, certain kinds of transfers have been declared any
other clause.
e) Any other act fitted to deceive. It covers those acts which deceive but are not covered
under any other clause.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF FRAUD

1. The fraud must be committed by a party to a contract or by anyone with his connivance or by his
agent. Thus, the fraud by a stranger to a contract does not affect the validity of the contract.
2. There must be a false representation and it must be made with the knowledge of its falsehood.
Where the representation was true at the time when it was made but becomes untrue before the
contract is entered into and this fact is known to the party who made the representation, it must be
corrected. If it is not so corrected, it will amount to fraud.
3. The representation must relate to a fact. In other words, a mere opinion, a statement of expression
or intention does not amount to fraud.
4. The fraud must have actually deceived the other party who has acted on the basis of such
representation. In other words, an attempt to deceive the other party by which the other party is
not actually deceived is not a fraud.
5. The party acting on the representation must have suffered some loss.
When the silence amount to fraud??

GENERAL RULE: Mere (only) silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into
a contract is not fraud.
EXCEPTION: Where the circumstances of the case are such that regard being had to them, it was duty
of the person keeping silence to speak. Such duty arises in the following two cases-
a) Duty to speak exists where the parties stand in a fiduciary relationship, e.g. father and son,
guardian and ward, trustee and beneficiary etc. or where contract is a contract of ubberima
fidei (i.e. requiring utmost good faith), e.g. contracts of insurance.
b) When silence itself is equivalent to speech.
33
4) MISREPRESENTATION: The term ‘misrepresentation’ means a false representation of fact made

innocently or non-disclosure of a material fact without any intention to deceive the other party.
As per Sec. 18, misrepresentation means and includes a wrong statement of fact made
innocently, i.e., without any intention to deceive the other party. It may be caused-
a) By positive assertion or a statement, in a manner not warranted by the information of the
person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
b) By breach of duty, which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person
committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice or to
the prejudice of anyone claiming under him;
c) Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake regarding the
subject matter of the agreement.
Essential of misrepresentation-
a) There must be a representation or omission of a material fact and such false representation
must be made without the knowledge of its falsehood i.e. the person making it must honestly
believe it to be true.
b) The representation or omission of duty must be made with a view to inducing the other party to
enter into contract but without the intention of deceiving the other party.
c) The representation or omission of duty must have actually induced the party to enter into
contract.
EFFECTS OF MISREPRESENTATION:
1. Right to rescind the contract: The party whose consent was caused by misrepresentation can
rescind (cancel) the contract but he cannot do so in the following cases-
a) Where the party whose consent was caused by misrepresentation had the means of
discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
b) Where the party gave the consent in ignorance of the misrepresentation.
c) Where the party after becoming aware of the misrepresentation, takes a benefit under the
contract.
d) Where an innocent third party, before the contract can be rescinded, acquires for
consideration some interest in the property passing under the contract.
e) Where the parties cannot be restored to their original position.
2. Right to insist upon performance: The party whose consent was caused by misrepresentation may
if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed and that he shall be put in the position in
which he would have been if the representation made had been true.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
BASIS OF FRAUD MISREPRESENTATION

DISTINCTION
1. MEANING A fraud is an intentional
An innocent or unintentional
misrepresentation or concealment of misrepresentation of material facts by
material fact to induce the other party
one party fact to induce another to enter
to enter into a contract. into a contract, without an intention to
deceive.
2. INTENTION Fraud is committed with an intention There is no such intention to deceive.
34
to deceive
3. BELIEF IN THE The person committing fraudulent act The person making misrepresentation
FACTS does not believe it to be true. believes in the facts to be true and
existing.
4. SUIT FOR The aggrieved party has right to sue The aggrieved party cannot sue for
DAMAGE the other party for damages. damages.
5. DEFENSE A party cannot set up a defense that In case of misrepresentation the other
the aggrieved party had means of party always set up a defense that the
discovering the truth except in case of aggrieved party that the aggrieved party
fraud by concealment or by silence. had means of discovering the truth.
5) MISTAKE (Sec. 20, 21, 22): A mistake is said to have occurred where the parties intending to do one
thing by error do something else.
According to Sec. 20 mistake means erroneous belief concerning some fact. The parties are said to
consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. If they do not agree upon the same
thing in the same sense, there will be no contract.
When the consent of one or both the parties to a contract is caused by misconception or
erroneous belief, the contract is said to be induced by mistake.
MISTAKE
MISTAKE OF FACT MISTAKE OF LAW

(S.20, 22) (S. 21)
UNILATERAL BILATERAL MISTAKE OF MISTAKE OF

MISTAKE (S.22) MISTAKE (S.20) INDIAN LAW FOREIGN LAW
Contract is valid Contract is void Contract is not Same effect as that

voidable i.e. valid of mistake of fact
(a) MISTAKE OF LAW: As regarding mistake of law, there is a judicial principle based on a maxim i.e.
‘ignorantia juris non excusat’ which means that ignorance of law is not excusable. Every person
is bound to know the laws prevailing in the nation and therefore one cannot take a defense that he
was not aware of the law and cannot evade from the performance of the contract provided it is a
contract to perform some lawful act only and not something that is per se (i.e. in itself) unlawful.
35
Although, mistake of foreign law has the same effect as that of a mistake of fact as foreign law is a
matter of fact.
(b) MISTAKE OF FACT (Sec. 20 & 22): There is again a judicial principle regarding mistake of fact
which is based on a maxim i.e. ‘ignorantia facti excusat’ which means that ignorance of fact is
excusable.
BILATERAL MISTAKE (Sec.20): An agreement is void where there is a bilateral mistake as to the
subject matter. According to Section 20, “Where both the parties are under a mistake as to a
matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.” Thus, the following three
conditions must be satisfied before declaring a contract void under this section-
 Both the parties must be under a mistake
 Mistake must be of fact but not of law.
 Mistake must relate to an essential fact.
According to the explanation of Sec.20, “An erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms
the subject-matter of the agreement is not to be deemed a mistake as to a matter of fact.”
1) Bilateral mistake as to subject matter includes-

a) Mistake as to existence of subject matter
b) Mistake as to identity of subject matter
c) Mistake as to title of subject matter
d) Mistake as to price of subject matter
e) Mistake as to quality of subject matter
f) Mistake as to quantity of subject matter
2) Mistake as to the possibility of performance- The agreement is void where there is bilateral
mistake as to the possibility of performance. In other words, where the parties to an agreement
believe that the agreement is capable of performance, while in fact it is not so, the agreement is
treated as void. The impossibility may either be physical or legal.
UNILATERAL MISTAKE (Sec.22): The term ‘unilateral mistake’ means where only one party to an
agreement is under a mistake. According to Sec. 22, “A contract is not voidable merely because it
was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact.”
EXCEPTIONS: The agreement is void where a unilateral mistake relates to the identity of the
person contracted with or the nature of the contract.
1) Mistake as to identity of the person contracted with- The agreement is void.

2) Mistake as to the nature of contract- The agreement is void
3) Mistake as to other matter- Agreement is not void.
36
EVERY AGREEMENT OF WHICH THE OBJECT OR CONSIDERATION IS UNLAWFUL IS VOID [SEC 23]
As per Sec. 10, consideration and object of an agreement must be a lawful one in order to constitute a
valid contract; otherwise the agreement is void. Certain considerations and objects have been expressly
declared as unlawful under Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act and therefore the contracts having such
unlawful objects and considerations are void.
Following are the instances of unlawful objects and considerations-

a) If it is forbidden by law: If the object or the consideration of an agreement is forbidden (i.e.
prohibited) by law, the agreement is void. An act is said to be forbidden by law when it is
punishable either by the criminal law of the country or by special legislation.
b) If it defeats the provisions of any law
c) If it is fraudulent: If the object of an agreement is to defraud others, the agreement is void.
d) If it involves or implies injury to a person or property of another
e) If the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy: It is not easy to define the
term ‘public policy’ with any degree of precision because ‘public policy’ by its very nature, is
highly uncertain and keeps on changing with the passage of time. In this regard, an agreement
whoch conflicts with morals of the time and contravenes any established interest of society
may be said to be opposed to public policy. In India, it has been left to the Court to hold any
contract as unlawful on the ground of being opposed to public policy.
The following agreements have been held to be opposed to public policy-

 Agreements of trading with enemy.
 Agreement for stifling prosecution.
 Agreement is the nature of maintenance and champerty: Maintenance is an agreement
whereby one party having no interest in suit, agrees to assist another to maintain suit.
Champerty is an agreement whereby one party agrees to assist another in recovering property
and in turn is to share in the proceeds of the action.
Both these agreements are declared illegal and void in English Law whereas all these
agreements are not illegal in India. The Court will refuse to enforce such agreements if its
object is not bonafide or the terms of reward are unreasonable in the opinion of court.
 Agreement for the sale/Transfer of public offices and titles.
 Agreement in restraint of parental rights which prevents a parent from exercising his
right to guardianship.
 Agreements in restraint of personal liberty.
 Agreement tending to create monopoly.
 Agreements interfering with course of justice.
 Agreement in restraint of marriage (Sec. 26)
 Agreement in restraint of trade (Sec. 27)
 Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings (Sec. 28)
ILLEGAL AGREEMENTS
Illegal agreements are those agreements which are-
(a) Void ab-initio, i.e. void from the very beginning, and
(b) Punishable by the criminal law of the country or by any special legislation/regulation.
EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL AGREEMENTS:

 The collateral transactions to an illegal agreement also become illegal and hence cannot be
enforced.
37
 No action can be taken for the recovery of money paid or property transferred under an illegal
agreement and for the breach of an illegal agreement.
 In case of an agreement containing the promise, some part of which is legal and other part
is illegal, the legal position is as under-
 If the illegal part cannot be separated from the legal part: The whole agreement is
altogether illegal.
 If the illegal part can be separated from the legal part: The Court will enforce the legal
part and reject the illegal part.
AGREEMENTS EXPRESSLY DECLARED AS VOID UNDER CONTRACT ACT
As per Sec. 2 (g), void agreement is an agreement which is not enforceable by law i.e. it is void ab initio.
Indian Contract Act enlists the following circumstances where agreements have been declared as void-
 Agreement by or with persons incompetent to contract [Sec.11]

 Agreement entered into through a mutual mistake i.e. bilateral mistake [Sec.20]
 Where object or consideration is unlawful [Sec.23]
 Where consideration or object is partially unlawful [Sec.24]
 Agreement without consideration [Sec.25]
 Agreement in restraint of marriage [Sec.26
 Agreement in restraint of trade [Sec.27]
 Agreement in restraint of legal proceeding [Sec.28]
 Where terms of contract is uncertain [Sec.29]
 Agreement is a wagering agreement [Sec.30]
 Agreement is an agreement to do an impossible thing [Sec.56]
 An agreement to enter into an agreement in the future.
AGREEMENT IN RESTRAINT OF MARRIAGE (Sec. 26)

According to Sec. 26 of the Indian Contract Act, every agreement in restraint of the marriage of any
person other than minor is void. Any restraint of marriage whether total or partial, is opposed to
public policy.
AGREEMENT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE (Sec. 27)

Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business
of any kind, is to that extent void. This is because Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India regards
the freedom of trade and commerce as a right of every individual. Therefore, no agreement can deprive
or restrain a person from exercising such a right.
Interpretation of the words “...that extent…”

These words may be interpreted in the sense that only that portion of such agreement is void
which is considered either as unreasonable or as opposed to public policy being in restraint of trade.
The rest of the agreement would continue to be valid.
38
EXCEPTIONS TO SEC. 27
The exceptions here mean the cases where agreements in restraint of trade are not considered
void. Such exceptions are-
A. Exceptions under Statutory Provisions-
1) Sale of goodwill- Seller of goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to restrain from
carrying on business. There are certain conditions of such restrictions to be valid-
a) Must relate to same business
b) Restriction shall apply within specified local limits.
c) Restriction shall apply within a reasonable time period
d) The specified local limits must be reasonable having regard to the nature of business.
Therefore, the buyer of goodwill may restrain the seller for carryin on any business similar to the one
sold by him within certain vicinity and for a certain period of time provided the restrictions in regard
to time and vicinity are found reasonable.
2) Restriction on existing partner [Sec. 11(2) of Indian Partnership Act]- Not to carry on business
other than business of the firm till he is partner.
3) Restriction on outgoing partner [Sec. 36 (2), Indian Partnership Act]- An outgoin partner may
agree with his partners that he will not carry on any business similar to that of the firm within a
specified period or within specified local limits. Such agreements shall be valid only if the
restrictions are reasonable. This restriction also implies not to carry on a similar business after
retirement
4) Restriction on partners upon or in anticipation of dissolution of a partnership firm [Sec. 54,

Indian Partnership Act]: Partners may, upon or in anticipation of dissolution of a partnership
firm, agree that some or all of them will not carry on business similar to that of the firm within
specified periods or local limits. Such agreement shall be valid only if the restrictions are
reasonable.
5) Sec. 55(2), Indian Partnership Act: Partner may agree with due buyers of goodwill, not to use the
firm name or carry on firm’s business or solicit clients of the firm.
6) Restriction in case of sale of goodwill [Sec. 55(3), Indian Partnership Act]: Upon sale of firm’s
goodwill, a partner may agree that he will not carry on any business similar to the firm within
specified periods or local limits.
B. Exceptions under Judicial Interpretations-

1) Trade combinations: Trade combinations which have been formed to regulate the business or to
fix prices are not void, but the trade combination which tend to create monopoly and which are
against the public interest are void.
2) Sole dealing agreement: An agreement to deal in the products of a single manufacturer or to sell
the whole produce to a single dealer is valid if their terms are reasonable.
3) Service agreements: A clause in service agreement may or may not be in restraint of trade.An
analysis of some of the clauses of service agreement is as under:
39
a) An agreement to serve the employer for a stipulated period: Such agreements, if

reasonable, do not amount to restraint of trade and hence are enforceable.
b) A clause to prevent the employee from accepting any other engagement during his
employment: Such agreements do not amount to restraint of trade and hence are
enforceable.
c) A clause to prevent the employee from accepting a similar engagement after the
termination of his employment:
 If the restraint is intended only to protect an employer against an employee making

use of trade secrets learned y him in the course of employment: Such agreemens do
not amount to restraint of trade and hence are enforceable by law.
 If a restraint is intended to serve any other purpose (say, to avoid competition):

Such agreements amounts to restraint of trade and hence, are not enforceable by law.
AGREEMENT IN RESTRAINT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [SEC. 28]

An agreement by which any party is restricted absolutely from enforcing his legal rights under
any contract is void. According to Sec. 28, the following two agreements amount to restraint of legal
proceedings and are thus, void to that extent-
a) Agreement restraining enforcement of rights: An agreement by which a party is restricted
absolutely from enforcing his legal rights under or in respect of any contract is void to that extent.
There are two exceptions to this rule-
 An agreement between two or more persons to referto arbitration any
dispute which may arise between them, is not illegal.
 An agreement in writing between two or more persons to refer to
arbitration any dispute which has already arisen is not illegal.
NOTE: Where two courts have jurisdiction to try a suit, an agreement between the parties that a
suit should be filed in one of those courts alone and not in the other is not invalid. [C. Milton & Co.
v. Ojha Automobile Co.]
However, an agreement not to go in appeal to a higher court against the judgment of a
lower court, does not amount to restraint of legal proceedings.
b) Agreements limiting period of limitation: An agreement which limits the time within which an
action may be brought so as to make it shorter than that prescribed by the Law of Limitation, is
void because its object is to defeat the provisions of law. A partial restrain is not void.
AN AGREEMENT THE MEANING OF WHICH IS NOT CERTAIN, VOID [SEC 29]

An agreement is called an uncertain agreement when the meaning of that agreement is not certain or
capable of being made certain. Such agreements are declared void under Section 29. Uncertainty may
relate to –
 Subject matter of contract; or
 Terms of contract.
Example: A agrees to sell to B “a hundred ton of oil.” There is whatever to show what kind of oil was
intended. The agreement is void for uncertainty.
40
WAGERING AGREEMENT [Sec. 30]
An agreement between two persons under which money or money’s worth is payable by one
person to another on the happen or non happening of a future uncertain event is called a
wagering agreement.
Essential elements of wagering agreements-

a) The must be a promise to pay money or money’s worth
b) Performance of a promise must depend upon determination of an uncertain event. An

event is said to be uncertain when it is yet to take place or it might have already happened but
the parties are not aware of its result.
c) Mutual chances of gains or loss: Each party must stand to win or lose upon the determination
of an uncertain event. If either of the parties may win but cannot loose, or may lose but cannot
win, it is not a wagering agreement.
d) Neither party to have control over the events

e) Neither party should have any other interest in the happening or non-happening of the
event other than the sum or stake he will win or lose.
f) One party is to win and one party is to lose
EXAMPLES OF WAGERING AGREEMENTS:
 Agreement to settle the difference between the contract price and market price of certain goods or
shares on a particular day.
 A lottery is wagering agreement. Therefore, an agreement to buy and sell lottery tickets is a
wagering agreement. (Section 294A of the Indian Penal Code declares that drawing of lottery is
an offence. However, the government may authorize lotteries. The persons authorized to conduct
lotteries are exempted from the punishment. But, the lotteries still remain a wagering transaction.
 An agreement to buy a lottery ticket.
 A crossword puzzle in which prizes depend upon correcpondence of the competitor’s solution with
a previously prepared solution kept with the Editor of newspapers is a lottery and hence a
wagering transaction. [State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamaurbaugwala]. But, a crossword puzzle
is generally a game of skill and intelligence and hence not a wager.
EXAMPLES OF TRANSACTIONS NOT HELD AS WAGERING AGREEMENTS:

 A commercial transaction should always be distinguished from a pure speculative transaction. A
commercial transaction is done with an intention of delivery of goods (commodity or security) and
payment of price. Therefore, it is not wagering agreement.
 Contract of insurance are contracts of utmost good faith and it is just a contingent contract and not
a wagering agreement.
 Prize competitions which are games of skill, e.g., picture puzzles.
 According to the Prize Competition Act, 1955, prize competitions in games of skill are not wagers
provided the prize money does not exceed Rs. 1,000.
 An agreement to contribute to a plate or prize of the value of above Rs. 500 to be awarded to the
winner of a horse race. (Sec.30)
Effects of wagering agreements-

 Agreements by way of wager are void in India.
 No suit can be filed to recovery the amount won on any wager.
41
 Agreements by way of wager have been declared illegal in the states of Maharashtra and
Gujarat.
 Any transaction or agreement collateral to wagering agreement are not void in India except in
the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat because such transactions and agreements as collateral
to wagering agreements are illegal in the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat.
CONTINGENT CONTRACTS (Sec. 31 to 36)

As per Sec. 31, “A contingent contract is a contract, to do or not to do something if some event,
collateral to such contract does or does not happen.”
Essential features of a contingent contract-

a) It is a contract to do or not to do something
b) Dependent on happening or non happening of an uncertain future event
c) Such an event is a collateral event (i.e. it is collateral to the contract) i.e. the event must not
depend upon the mere will of party.
d) The event is uncertain
Sec. 32: Contracts contingent upon the happening of an event

Such contracts cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event has happened.
Becomes enforceable: only if such event has happened
Becomes void: if such event because impossible i.e. happening becomes impossible.
Sec. 33: Contracts contingent upon non-happening of a future event
Becomes enforceable: When the happening of such event becomes impossible.
Becomes void: If such event happens.
Sec. 34: Contract contingent upon the future conduct of a living person
Becomes enforceable: When such person acts in the manner as desired in the contract.
Becomes void: When such person does anything which makes the desired future conduct of such
person impossible.
Sec. 35-
Contracts contingent upon happening of an uncertain specified event within a specified/fixed time
Becomes enforceable: When such event has happened within the specific time.
Becomes void: When the happening of such event because impossible before the expiry of specified
time or when such event has not happened within specified time.
Contracts contingent upon non-happening of an uncertain specified event within a fixed time
Becomes enforceable: When the happening of such event because impossible before the expiry of
specified time or when such event has not happened within the specified time.
Becomes void: When such event has happened within the specified period.
42
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTINGENT CONTRACT AND WAGERING AGREEMENT
BASIS OF DISTINCTION CONTINGENT WAGERING

CONTRACT AGREEMENT
A contingent contract is A wagering agreement is one
1) MEANING contract in which the in which one person agrees
promisor undertakes to to pay certain amount of
perform the contract upon money to the other on
the happening or non- happening or non-happening
happening of an event, of a specific event.
which is collateral to the
contract.
The event is collateral to the Even is the sole determining
2) NATURE OF EVENT contract, i.e. not a part of factor.
promise or consideration of
the contract.
There is no reciprocal The wagering agreement
3) RECIPROCAL PROMISE promise is a contingent consists of reciprocal
contract. promise.
The parties are interested in The parties to wagering
4) INTEREST IN THE the subject-matter of such agreement have no other
SUBJECT MATTER contracts. Therefore, the interest in the subject matter
happening or non- of the agreement except the
happening of the event is winning or losing the money
material for them. at stake.
A contingent contract is A wagering agreement is void
5) VALIDITY valid contract. agreement. In the State of
Maharastra and Gujarat it is
illegal.
All contingent contracts are All wagering agreements are
6) NATURE OF CONTRACT not wagering agreements contingent agreements
because all contingent because their performance is
contracts are not void. dependent upon uncertain
future events.
43
PERFORMANCE OF
CONTRACT
Performance of the contract is one of the various modes of discharge of the contract. A contract is said
to have been performed when the parties to a contract either perform or offer to perform their
respective promises. Sec.37 of the Indian Contract Act lays down the obligation of the parties regarding
performance.
Sec 37: The parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform, their respective promises
unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of Contract Act, or of
any other law.
TYPES OF PERFORMANCE
 Actual performance: When a promisor has made an offer of performance to the promisee and the
offer has been accepted by the promisee, it is called an actual promisee. The contractual
obligations are actually performed whereby the liability of a party under the contract comes to an
end.
 Attempted performance or tender of performance: Where the promisor has made an offer of
performance to the promisee, and the offer has not been accepted by the promisee, it is called an
attempted performance [Sec.38]. Such refusal to accept offer of performance by promisee
discharges the party from its liability and from its performance.
Tender or offer of performance to be valid must satisfy the following conditions-

 It must be unconditional
 It must be made at a proper time and place i.e. must be made in stipulated time that too during
the business hours and also at the stipulated place i.e. promisee’s business place or at
promisee’s residence if there is no business place.
 Reasonable opportunity to the promisee to examine and ascertain that the goods offered are
the same as the promisor is bound to deliver.
 It must be for the whole obligation and not for a part of it.
 It must be made to the promisee or his duly authorized agent.
 In case of payment of money, tender must be of the exact amount due and it must be a legal
tender.
EFFECT OF REFUSAL OF PARTY TP PERFORM PROMISE WHOLLY: When a party to a contract has
refused to perform or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the promisee may
put an end to the contract, unless he has signified, by words or conduct, his acquiescence in its
continuance.
44
WHO CAN DEMAND PERFORMANCE?
a) Promisee– Stranger can’t demand performance of the contract.
b) Legal Representative– In case of death of the promisee, the legal representative can demand
performance unless a contrary intention appears from the contract or the contract is of
personal nature.
c) Third party– A third party can also demand performance of the contract in some exceptional
cases like beneficiary in case of trust, the person for whose benefir the provision is made in a
family arrangement. This is an exception to the doctrine that a stranger to a contract cannot
enforce a contract.
d) Joint Promisees- In case of several promisees, unless a contrary intention appears from the
contract, the following persons must perform the promise-
 In case all the promisees are alive- All the promisees jointly can demand
performance.
 In case of death of any of the joint promisees- Representatives of deceased promisee
jointly with the surviving promisee(s) can demand performance of promise.
 In case of death of all joint promisees- Representatives of all of them jointly can
demand performance of the promise.
BY WHOM PROMISE IS TO BE PERFORMED / WHO WILL PERFORM THE CONTRACT (SEC 40)
a) Promisor himself- If it appears from nature of the case that it was the intention of the parties
to a contract that any promise contained in it should be performed by the promisor himself,
such as the ones which includes personal skill, volition or art, such promise must be performed
by the promisor himself.
Example- A promises to paint a picture for B as this promise involves personal skill of A. It
must be performed by A.
b) Promisor or agent– If it was not the intention of the parties to a contract that the promise
should be performed by the promisor himself, as does not involves personal skill of the
promisor, such contracts can be performed by the promisor himself or any competent person
employed by him.
c) Legal Representative– In case of death of the promisor, his legal representatives can perform
the contract unless a contrary intention appears or the contract does not involve personal skill.
d) Third person [Sec.41]- A contract can be performed by a third party if the promisee accepts
arrangement i.e. performance by a third party. According to Sec.41, when a promisee accepts
the performance by a third party, he cannott afterwards enforce the performance against the
promisor although the promisor might not have authorized or ratified the act of the third
party. In other meaning once the promisee accepts the performance from a third person, he
cannot compel the promisor to perform the contract again.
45
e) Joint Promisors- In case of several promisors, unless a contrary intention appears from the
contract, the following persons must perform the promise-
 In case all the promisors are alive- All the promisors jointly must perform.
 In case of death of any of the joint promisors- Representatives of deceased promisor
jointly with the surviving promisor(s) must perform the promises.
 In case of death of all joint promisors- Representatives of all of them jointly must
perform the promises.
DEVOLUTION OF JOINT LIABILITIES AND JOINT RIGHTS
“Devolution” means passing over from one person to another.
Sec.42 provides for the devolution of joint liabilities: The liabilities of joint promisors pass to their
legal representatives (in case of death).
RULES REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE OF JOINT PROMISE [SEC. 43 & 44]:
a) Joint and several liability of joint promisors: When two or more persons make a joint
promise, the promisee may, in the express contract to the contrary, compel anyone or more of
such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise.
b) Right to claim contribution: Each of two or more joint promisors may compel every other
joint promisor to contribute equally with himself to the performance of the promise, unless a
contrary intention appears from the contract.
c) Sharing of loss by default in contribution: If anyone of two or more joint promisors makes a
default in such contribution, the remaining joint promisors must bear the loss arising from
such default in equal shares.
d) Effect of release of one joint promisor: Where two or more persons made a joint promise, a
release of one of such joint promisors by the promisee, does not discharge the other joint
promisor or joint promisors; neither does it free the joint promisor so released from
responsibility to the other joint promisor or joint promisors. (Sec 44)
NOTE: In English law if one joint promisor is discharge then all the joint promisors gets
discharged.
MEANING OF DEVOLUTION OF JOINT RIGHTS [SECTION 45]

When a person has made a promise to two or more persons jointly, then, unless a contrary
intention appears from the contract, the right to claim performance rests, as between him and
them during their joint lives, and, after the death of any of them, with the representative of such
deceased person jointly, with the survivor or survivors and after the death of the last survivor,
with the representative of all jointly.
RULES REGARDING THE TIME AND PLACE OF PERFORMANCE [SECTIONS 46 TO 50]

 Where no time is specified for performance [Sec. 46]
 Time of performance is not specified + promisor agreed to perform without a demand by the
promisee, the contract must be performed within a reasonable time.
 What is reasonable time is a question of fact and will depend on facts of the case.
46
 Where time is specified but hour not mentioned [Sec.47].

 Time of performance specified + promisor agreed to perform without application by the
promisee then contract must be performed on the day fixed in the contract during the usual
business hours and at the place at which the promise ought to be performed.
 Where time is fixed and promisor has not undertaken to perform without an application by
the promisee [Sec. 48]
 The promisee must apply for performance at a proper place and within the usual hour of
business.
 Where no place for performance is specified and no application is to be made by the

promisee [Sec. 49]
 It is the duty of the promisor to apply to the promisee to appoint a reasonable place for the
performance and perform it at such appointed place.
 Where the promisee prescribes the manner or time for performance [Sec. 50]
 The promise must be performed in the manner and at the time prescribed by the promisee.
47
TIME AS THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT (SEC. 55)
“Time is essence of a contract” means that it is essential for the parties to a contract to perform their
respective promises within the specified time. Where time is essence, the concerned parties must
perform and are under actual obligation to fulfil their respective promises within the specified time.
Time is pleaded as a fact that is to say that if time is specified for the performance of the contract,
this is not by itself sufficient to prove that time is essence of the contract. Intention of the parties has to
be observed in order to ascertain whether the parties had the intention to treat time as an essential fact
in that particular contract.
Cases where time is considered to be essence of contract:

 Where the parties have expressly agreed to treat as the essence of the contract.
 Where the non-performance at the specified time or delay operates as an injury to the party.
 Where the nature and necessity of the contract requires it to be performed within the specified
time.
In commercial or mercantile contracts, the time fixed for the delivery of goods is considered to be the
essence of a contract but the time fixed for the payment of the price is not considered to be the essence
of a contract.
In non-commercial and non-mercantile contracts, usually the presumption is that time is not the
essence of such contracts.
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME [SEC. 55]

The consequence of non-performance of a contract within the specified time depends upon whether the
time is essence of the contract or not:
 When time is essence of a contract-
a) The contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee.
b) If performance beyond the specific time is accepted, the promisee cannot claim
compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the
agreed time unless at the time of such acceptance, he gives notice to the promisor of his
intention to do so.
 When time is not the essence of the contract-

a) The contract does not become voidable at the option of the promisee.
b) The promisee is entitled to claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-
performance of the promise at the agreed time.
PERFORMANCE OF RECIPROCAL PROMISES

Meaning of Reciprocal Promise: As per Sec. 2 (f), “Promises which form the consideration or
part of consideration for each other as called reciprocal promises.”
TYPES OF RECIPROCAL PROMISES:
a) Mutual and Independent- Such promises all to be performed by each party independently
without waiting for the other party to perform his promise and therefore he can’t excuse
himself on the ground of non-performance by the default party.
48
b) Mutual and Dependent- Where the performance of promise by one party depend on the prior
performance of the promise by other party. The party at fault becomes liable to pay
compensation to the other party may sustain by the non performance of the contract [Sec. 54]
c) Mutual and concurrent- When the promises are to be performed simultaneously a promisor
need not perform his part unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal
promise. [Sec. 51]
Order of performance of reciprocal promises [Sec. 52]: Where the order in which reciprocal
promises are to be performed is expressly fixed by the contract, they must be performed in that
order. And if the order is not expressly fixed by the contract, then it must be performed in the
order in which the nature of the transaction requires.
Effects of preventing the performance [Sec. 53]: When the contracts contain reciprocal promises,
and one party to the contract prevents the other from performing his promise, the contract
becomes voidable at the option of the party so prevented; and he is not entitles to sompensation
from the other party for any loss which ma sustain in consequence of the non-performance of the
contract.
APPROPRIATION OF PAYMENTS [SEC. 59–61]

{ALSO KNOWN AS RULE IN CLAYTON’S CASE}
“Appropriation” means application of payments or adjustment of payment towards the debts. The
question of appropriation of payments arises when a debtor owes several debts to the same creditor and
makes a payment that is not sufficient to discharge the whole indebtness.
Appropriation of Payments- Sometimes, a debtor owes several distinct debts to the same creditor and he
makes a payment which is insufficient to satisfy all the debts. In such a case, a question arises as to which
particular debt the payment is to be appropriated. Section 59 to 61 of the Act which actually incorporates
the four rules laid down in Clayton’s case provides for the following rules as to appropriation of payments
which provide an answer to this question.
1) Appropriation as per express instructions by the debtor to the creditor [Sec. 59]: Every debtor
who owes several debts to a creditor has a right to instruct his creditor to which particular debt, the
payment is to be appropriated or adjusted. Therefore, where the debtor expressly states that the
payment is to be applied to the discharge of a particular debt, the payment must be applied
accordingly.
Example: A owes B three distinct debts of Rs. 2,000, 3,000 and 5,000. A sends Rs. 5,000 and instructs
B that the payment should be appropriated against the third debt. He is bound to appropriate the
payment against the third debt only.
2) Application of payment where debt to be discharge is not indicated [Sec. 60]: Where the debtor
has omitted to intimate, and there are no other circumstances indicating to which debt the payment is
to be applied, the creditor shall have the discretion to apply such payment for any lawful debt actually
due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is or is not barred by the law in force
for the time being as to the limitation of suits.
Example: A owes to B, among other debts, the sum of Rs. 5,000. B writes to A and demands payment
of this sum. A sends to B Rs. 5,000 accordingly. This payment is to be applied to the discharge of the
debt of which B had demanded payment.
49
3) Application of payment where neither party appropriates [Sec. 61]: Where neither party
appropriates, the payment shall be applied to discharge the debts including time barred ones in a
cronoloical order i.e. in order of time. If the debts are of equal standing, the payment shall be
appropriated/applied in discharge of each of these debts proportionately. [First interest then
principle]
QUASI CONTRACT [Sec. 68 to 72]
A Quasi-contract is not a contract at all because one or the other essentials for the formation of a
contract are absent. The term “Quasi” is a Latin word, which means “as if” or “Similarly”. It means
seemingly, apparently, but not really.
Chapter V containing Sections 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act lays down provisions relating to
Quasi Contracts although this term has not been used as such rather these transactions have been
recognised as “Certain relations resembling those created by contracts”. These are contracts implied
in law as implied contracts. It means a contract which lacks one or more of the essentials of a contract.
Quasi contract are declared by law as valid contracts on the basis of principles of equity and the
doctrine of unjust enrichment i.e. no person shall be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the
expense/cost of another & the legal obligations of parties remains the same as that in a contract.
This concept was propounded in the case of Moses v. Mc Furlong by Lord Mansfield.
Nature of Quasi contracts-

 A quasi contract does not arise from any formal agreement but is imposed by law.
 Every quasi contract is based upon the principle of equity and good conscience.
 A quasi contract is always a right to money and generally though not always to a liquidated sum
of money.
 A suit for its breach may be filed in the same way as in case of a complete contract.
 The right granted to a party under a quasi contract is not available to him against the whole
world but against particular person(s) only.
 A suit for breach of a quasi contract may be filed in the same way as in case of an ordinary
contract
 Although there is no express or implied contract between the parties under a quasi contracts
yet they are put in the same position as if there is a contract between them.
PROVISIONS RELATING TO VARIOUS QUASI CONTRACTS ARE CONTAINED

UNDER SECTIONS 68 TO SEC 72 OF CONTRACT ACT, 1872
1. Sec. 68: Supply of necessaries to a person not competent to contract

If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to
support, is supplied by another person, with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person
who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable
person.
Only the property of the incapable person is liable for reimbursement, not the person
himself for the obvious reason that he is incompetent to contract. Where he doesn’t own any
property, nothing shall be payable. There is no definition of the term ‘necessaries’. What
50
constitutes necessaries is a question of fact and depends upon the facts and circumstances of the
case. Moreover, what is luxury to one person may be a necessity to another.
Example: A supplies B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to his condition in life. A is entitled to be
reimbursed from B’s property.
Landmark case: Nash v. Inmann (1908)

Khangul v. Lakhha
2. Sec. 69: Reimbursement i.e. right to recover money paid for another person.
Payment by a person who is interested in such payment is recoverable as an equitable
right. A person, who is interested in the payment of money and pays such money, which another is
bound by law to pay, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.
3. Sec. 70: Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.
Where a person, lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him;
not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefits thereof then he is
bound to make compensation to the other in respect of, or to restore the thing so done or
delivered.
Example 1: A, a tradesman, leaves goods at B’s house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. He
is bound to pay A for them.
Example 2: A saves B’s property from fire. A is not entitled to compensation from B, if the
circumstances show that he intended to act gratuitously.
Section 70 corresponds to what in England is called “Actions for Quantum Meruit” which
means ‘as much as is deserved’.
4. Sec. 71: Responsibility of finder of goods.

A person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into custody, is subject to
the same responsibility as that of a bailee i.e. duty to take reasonable care of the goods, duty not to
use the goods for his own purpose, duty not to mix the goods with own goods, right to recover
reasonable expenses, reward, or even to sell the goods lawfully.
Finder’s right to sell: Under Sec. 169, the finder of goods has the power to sell them when-
a) The owner of the goods cannot with reasonable diligence be found, or he refuses, upon
demand, to pay the lawful charges of the finder, and
b) Either the thing found is in danger of perishing or of losing the greater part of its value, or,
in case the goods are not of perishable nature, but the lawful charges of the finder, in
respectof the thing found, amount to two-thirds of its value.
5. Sec.72: Money paid under a mistake or coercion.

A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered by mistake or under
coercion, must repay or return it.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation created by quasi contract [Section 73]
When an obligation created by quasi contract is not discharged the injured party is entitled to
reline the same compensation from the party in default as if such person had, contracted to discharge
is and broken his contract.
51
DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT
Discharge of a contract means termination of the contractual relations between the parties to a
contract. When the rights and obligations arising out of a contract are extinguished, the contract is said
to be discharged or terminated. Simply put, when both the parties are legally discharged or relaxed
from performing their part of the promises in a particular contract, the contract is said to have been
discharged.
A contract may be discharged by any of the following ways:

 By performance– Actual or Attempted.
 By mutual consent or agreement.
 By subsequent or supervening impossibility or illegality.
 By lapse of time.
 By operation of law.
 By breach of contract.
I. DISCHARGE BY PERFORMANCE- Performance of a contract is the most popular manner of

discharge of a contract. The performance may be either actual performance or attempted
performance.
i. Actual performance: When each party fulfils his obligations arising out of the contract
within the time and in a manner prescribed, it is called the actual performance and the
contract comes to an end.
ii. Attempted performance or Tender: When the promisor offers to perform his obligation,
but is unable to do so because the promise does not accept the performance, it is called
“Attempted Performance” or “tender”. Thus tender is not actual performance but is only an
offer to perform the obligation under the contract. A valid tender of performance is
equivalent to performance.
II. DISCHARGE BY MUTUAL CONSENT OR AGREEMENT (SEC. 62)- A contract is created by means
of an agreement, it may also be discharged by another agreement between the same parties.
i. Novation: “Novation” occurs when a new contract is substituted for an existing contract,
either between the same parties or between different parties, the consideration mutually
being the discharge of the old contract.” If the parties are same, then small changes in the
terms of contract is called “alteration” and not “novation”. For being “Novation”, the
changes must be of significant nature.
ii. Alteration: It means that change of one or more of the material terms of a contract. A
material alteration is one which alters the legal effect of the contract. e.g. change in the
amount of money, change in the rate of interest etc. Note that a material alteration made in
a contract by one party without the consent of the other will make the whole contract void
and no person can maintain an action upon it.
iii. Rescission: A contract may be discharged before the date of performance, by agreement
between the parties to the effect that it shall no longer bind them. Such an agreement
amounts to “Rescission” or cancellation of the contract, the consideration being the
52
abandonment by the respective parties of their rights under the contract. If there is non-
performance of a contract by both the parties for a long time without complaint, it amounts
to an implied rescission (Note: In rescission, the existing contract is cancelled by mutual
consent without substituting a new contract in its place.)
iv. Remission: It is defined as “Acceptance of lesser amount than what was contracted for or a
lesser fulfillment of the promise made.”
v. Waiver: It means deliberate giving up of a right which a party is entitled to under a

contract whereupon the other party to the contract is released from his obligation.
III. DISCHARGE BY SUBSEQUENT OR SUPERVENING IMPOSSIBILITY OR ILLEGALITY
i. Impossibility at the time of contract (Initial impossibility) - If you contract for

something impossible, the agreement is void ab initio.
ii. Subsequent impossibility [Sec. 56, Para 2] – If impossibility is found out after the
contract is made, then the contract becomes void from such date. Sec. 2(j) defines a void
contract as “A contract to do an act which, after making the contract, becomes impossible
or unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.”
Sec. 56 is what actually incorporates “Doctrine of frustration.” In England, before 1863,

subsequent impossibility of performance was not a defence. The doctrine evolved in the case of
Taylor v. Caldwell (1863). In this case, subject matter of the case was a music hall. The defendant
agreed to let out the music hall to the plaintiff on specified dates for the purpose of entertainment.
The hall was destroyed by fire prior to those dates. The plaintiff, however, sued for damages for
breach of the contract. The defendant pleaded that the supervening impossibility discharged him
from the contract. This defence was successful and the suit was dismissed. This doctrine was
embodied in Para 2 of Sec. 56. In certain circumstances the parties to a contract are discharged
from performance of the obligations when there is a supervening impossibility. The contract is
then said to be frustrated.
Landmark cases: 1. Krell v. Henry {Coronation Procession Case}

2. Satyabrat Ghosh v. Mungneeram Bangur & Co. (1954)
A contract is discharged by supervening impossibility in the following cases:

 Destruction of the subject-matter
 Death or personal incapacity
 Declaration of war
 Change of law
 Non-existence or non-occurrence of a particular state of things necessary for the
performance.
Cases when the contract is not discharged on the ground of supervening impossibility:
 Difficulty of performance
 Commercial impossibility
 Default of a third party
 Strikes, lockouts and civil disturbances
 Partial impossibility.
53
IV. DISCHARGE BY LAPSE OF TIME: In some circumstances, the lapse of time may also discharge
the contacts, e.g. the period of limitation for simple contracts is three years the under Limitation
Act and therefore on default by a debtor, if the creditor does not file a suit of recovery against him
within three years of default, the debt becomes time barred and the creditor will not get the help
of the law. This in effect discharges the contract. Also where times is of essence, if the contract is
not performed on time, the contract comes to an end, and the party not at fault need not perform
his obligation and may sue the other party for damages.
V. DISCHARGE BY OPERATION OF LAW: A contract is discharged by operation of law in the

following cases-
i. Death: Sometimes, a contract is of a personal nature and involves personal skills etc. of
promisor. In such cases, the contract is discharged on the death of the promisor.
ii. Insolvency: When a person is adjudged as insolvent then he is released from his all
liabilities in current order of adjudication. His rights (Assets) and liabilities are
transferred to the official assignee or official receiver, as the case may be.
iii. Merger of rights: When an inferior right accruing to a party in a contract mergers into a
superior right accruing to the same party, then the contract conferring inferior right is
discharged. For example, A took a land on lease from B. Subsequently, A purchases that
land. A becomes owner of the land and ownership rights being superior to rights of a
lessee, the earlier contract of lease stands terminated.
iv. Loss of evidence of contract: Where the evidence of the existence of the contract is lost
or vanished, the contract is discharged. For example, document of contract is lost or
destroyed and no other evidence is available, the contract is discharged.
VI. DISCHARGE BY BREACH OF CONTRACT: A contract is sometimes discharged, by its breach

generally if any party to the contract refuses or fails to perform his part of the contract or by
his act makes it impossible to perform his obligations under the contract. A breach of contract
may occur in the following two ways-
a) Anticipatory breach of contract (Sec. 39): Anticipatory breach of contract occurs
when the party declares his intention of not performing the contract before the
performance is due.
b) Actual breach: Actual breach occurs in the following two ways-

i. On due date of performance
ii. During the course of performance
Consequence of breach of contract: The aggrieved party (i.e. the party not at fault) is discharged
from his obligation and gets rights to proceed against the party as fault.
54
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
Remedy means course of action available to an aggrieved party when other party breaches the
contract. Chapter VI of Contract Act with Sec. 73 to 75 deals with the consequences of breach of a
contract. When a contract is breached, the injured party is entitled to one or more of the following
remedies-
 Suit for specific performance of the contract
 Rescission of the contract
 Suit for damages
 Suit upon quantum merit
 Suit for injunction
1. SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: The suit for specific performance is regulated by the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. Specific performance means the actual carrying out of the contract as agreed. The
Court may grant specific performance where it is just and equitable to do. Specific Performance
may be granted under the following grounds-
i. Where actual damages arising from breach is not measurable.
ii. Where monetary compensation is not adequate remedy.
The Court cannot grant the remedy of specific performance in the following situations-
i. Where monetary compensation is an adequate relief
ii. Where the Court cannot supervise the actual execution of the work
iii. Where the Contract is for personal services
iv. Where the Contract is not enforceable by either party against the other.
v. Where contract is inequitable to either party.
vi. Where contract made by company beyond its power. (ultravires)
2. RESCISSION OF CONTRACT [Sec. 39]: Rescission means a right not to perform an obligation. In
such cases, the injured/aggrieved party is discharged from all the obligations under the contract
and can either rescind the contract and file a suit claiming compensation for the damage which he
has sustained because of the non-performance of the contract.
3. SUIT FOR DAMAGES: Damages are a monetary compensation allowed to the injured party for the
loss suffered by him in a breach of contract. There are four kinds of damages under the Indian
Contract Act of 1872. The aggrieved party of the contract is entitled for monetary compensation
when the contract is breached.
The objective of awarding damages is not to punish the party at fault but to make good the
financial loss suffered by the aggrieved party due to the breach of contract as also to put the
aggrieved/injured party in a position in which he would have been had there been performance
and not breach. The aggrieved/injured party must be able to prove the actual loss or no damages
will be awarded.
In India, the rules relating to damages are based on the judgment in English case of Hadley
v. Buxendale (1854). Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act which deals with compensation for
loss or damage caused by breach of contract is based on the judgment of this case. It states that the
aggrieved party may claim the damages as follows-
55
 Such damages which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach. This
relates to ordinary damages arising in the usual course of things.
 Such damages which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result
from the breach. This relates to special damages.
 The aforesaid compensation is not to be given for any remote or indirect loss or damage
sustained by reason of the breach.
Damages can be of four kinds-

 Ordinary or General Damages
 Special Damages
 Exemplary, Punitive or Vindicative Damages
 Nominal Damages
 Liquidated damages and penalty
(a) Ordinary damages are restrained to the "direct or proximate consequences" of the breach of a
contract. The remote and indirect losses, which are not natural and possible consequence of the
breach of contract, cannot be taken into account.
(b) Special Damages can be claimed only if special circumstances which would result in a special loss
in case of breach of contract are brought to the notice of the party. These damages arise on account
of the special or unnatural circumstances affecting the plaintiff. The special circumstances which
are mentioned above are the circumstances at the time when the contract is entered into.
Subsequent knowledge of special circumstances will not create any special liability.
(c) Exemplary or punitive damages are awarded with a view to punish the guilty party for the
breach. The exemplary damages have no place in the law of contract since the object of the
damages is to compensate the loss suffered by the injured party in case of a breach. However,
Exemplary or Punitive damages are awarded to the following exemptions.
o Breach of a contract to marry
o Dishonour of a cheque by a banker when there are sufficient funds to the credit of the
customer.
(d) Nominal damages are awarded when there is no significant loss suffered by the plaintiff. It is
awarded for namesake to establish the right of the injured party.
(e) Suit for Quantum Meruit: The term "Quantum Meruit" is derived from a Latin phrase which
means "what one has earned". The injured party can file a suit upon quantum merit and may claim
payment in proportion to work done or goods supplied. Sections 65 to 70 deal with the provisions
relating to suit for Quantum Merit.
(f) Suit for injunction: Injunction is an order of the Court restraining a person from doing a particular
act. Where the defendant is doing something which he is promised not to do, then the injured party
will get a right to file a suit for injunction. Injunction basically means stay order granted by court.
This order prohibits a person to do particular act. Where there is breach of contract by one party
and order of specific performance is not granted by court, injunction may be granted.
56
UNIT V: SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT
 Specific performance of contract

 Contracts that can be specifically enforced and that can’t be specifically enforced
 Persons against whom specific enforcement can be ordered
 Rescission and cancellation
 Injunctions– temporary, perpetual, mandatory, obligatory
 Declaratory decree
 Discretion and powers of court
“The law ought to assure me everything which is mine, without forcing me to accept equivalents,
although I have no particular objection to them.” -
-- Bentham
The Specific Relief Act provides for specific reliefs. The expression ‘Specific Relief’ means a relief
in specie. Specific relief means relief of certain species, i.e. an exact or particular, a named, fixed or
determined relief. The term is generally understood and providing relief of a specific kind rather than
a general relief or damages or compensation. It is a remedy which aims at the exact fulfilment of an
obligation or specific performance of the contract. Specific Relief Act explains and enunciates the
various reliefs which can be granted under this provisions, provides the law with respect to them.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 extends to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The
Specific Relief Act deals only with certain kinds of equitable reliefs and these are-
 Recovery of possession of property

 Specific performance of contracts
 Rectification of instruments
 Rescission of contracts
 Cancellation of instruments
 Declaratory decrees
 Injunctions
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY
Recovery of possession is dealt with in Sections 5 to 8 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 5 and 6 deals
with the immovable property and Section 7 and 8 deals with the movable property.
Section 5 - Recovery of specific immovable property

Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act deals with the recovery of specific immovable property- “A
person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner
provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”
The section in simple words provides that any person who is a lawful owner of an immovable
property, can get the possession of such property by due course of law. It means that when a person is
entitled to the possession of specific immovable property he can recover the same by filing the suit as
per provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He may file a suit for ejectment on the strength of his title
and can get a decree for ejectment on the basis of title within 12 years of the date of dispossession.
57
There are three types of actions which can be brought in law for the recovery of specific immovable
property:
 a suit based on title by ownership;
 a suit based on possessory title; and
 a suit based merely on the previous possession of the plaintiff, where he has been
dispossessed without his consent, otherwise than in due course of law.
The last remedy is provided in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The suits of the first two types can be
filed under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The word ‘entitled to possession’ means having
a legal right to title to possession on the basis of ownership of which the claimant has been
dispossessed. Plaintiff must show that he had possession before the alleged trespasser got possession.
Section 6– Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property

1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due
course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof,
notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
2) No suit under this section shall be brought-
a. After the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
b. Against the Government.
3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor
shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property
and to recover possession thereof.
The main object of Section 6 is to discourage forcible dispossession on the principle that disputed
rights are to be decided by due process of law and no one should be allowed to take law into his own
hands, however good his title may be.
Section 6 provide summary and speedy remedy through the medium of Civil Court for the
restoration of possession to a party dispossessed by another, within 6 months of its dispossession,
leaving them to fight out the question of their respective titles in a competent Court.
Requisites of Section 6-
1. Judicial possession of the plaintiff at the time of dispossession: The plaintiff must establish his
judicial possession at the time of dispossession. Judicial possession is not equivalent to lawful
possession. If a person has the possession of property as a fact and once he becomes settled as
such, it is enough for the purpose of relief under Section 6, irrespective of his being without any
right to the same or mere trespasser.
2. Dispossession of the plaintiff without his consent otherwise than in due course of law: For the
application of this section the dispossession must be without the consent of plaintiff or against the
process of and operation of law invoked by the ordinary method of Civil Court.
3. The suit must be instituted within 6 months from the date of dispossession: Section 6
prescribes its own period of limitation as 6 months for suits to be filed there under.
4. Dispossession must be of ‘immovable property’: The expression ‘immovable property’ means

only such properties of which physical possession can be given under the Act and it does not cover
58
incorporeal rights, since the incorporeal rights are not rights of which possession can be taken and
delivered to the claimant.
5. Dispossession has not been made by the Government, but by any other person.
6. Under this Section, an order or decree is final in the sense that it is not open to review or
appeal, although it is subject to revision by High Court.
SECTION 5 SECTION 6
The plaintiff has to file a long-drawn It gives a summary remedy.
regular suit for ejectment.
The claim is based on title. The claim is based on possession and no proof of
title is required and even rightful owner may be
precluded from showing his title to the land.
The period of limitation is 12 years. The period of limitation is of only 6 months from
the date of dispossession.
RECOVERY OF SPECIFIC MOVABLE PROPERTY
Section 7 - Recovery of specific movable property

A person entitled to the possession of specific movable property may recover it in the manner
provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Explanation 1- A trustee may sue under this section for the possession of movable property to the
beneficial interest in which the person for whom he is trustee is entitled.
Explanation 2- A special or temporary right to the present possession of movable property is sufficient
to support a suit under this section.
Section 7 provides for the recovery of movable property in specie i.e. the things itself. The
things to be recovered must be specific in the sense they are ascertained and capable of identification.
The nature of things must continue without alteration. Where the Court decrees delivery of such
property, the decree shall also state the amount of money to be paid in alternative, if delivery cannot be
had.
Section 8 - Liability of person in possession, not as owner, to deliver to persons entitled to

immediate possession
Any person having the possession or control of a particular article of movable property, of which
he is not the owner, may be compelled specifically to deliver it to the person entitled to its immediate
possession, in any of the following cases:-
(a) when the thing claimed is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff;
59
(b) when compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the
thing claimed;
(c) when it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by its loss;
(d) when the possession of the thing claimed has been wrongfully transferred from the plaintiff.
Explanation- Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall, in respect of any article of
movable property claimed under clause (b) or clause (c) of this section, presume-
i. that compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the
thing claimed, or, as the case may be;
ii. that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by its loss.
The relief under Section 8 can only be granted against a person having the possession and control
of the particular article claimed by the plaintiff. The object of this section is to provide special remedy
so that persons having the possession or control of particular articles of movable property, although
not as their owners, may be compelled specifically to deliver them to the persons entitled to their
immediate possession.
Requisites of Section 8:
1. The defendant has possession or control of the particular article claimed;

2. Such article is movable property;
3. The defendant is not the owner of the article;
4. The plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession; and
5. Anyone of the condition laid down under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 8 must exist.
Provisions of Section 8 are applicable in the following situations only:
(a) When such property is held by the defendant as agent or trustee of the property.
(b) When compensation is not an adequate relief for the loss to the plaintiff.
(c) When ascertainment of actual damage is not possible.
(d) When possession of the property is wrongfully transferred from the plaintiff.
In case of situations under (a) and (b), burden of proof is on the plaintiff and under (c) and (d) burden
is on the defendant.
Difference between Section 7 and section 8:

Section 7 and Section 8 both speak of the recovery of movable property. However the point of
difference between two are:
 Relief under Section 7 is of general nature, independent of nature of property, independent of
relationship between the parties. Whereas, relief under Section 8 is of specific character, depends
upon the nature of property, depends upon the relationship existing between the parties.
 Relief claimed under Section 7 is for the possession of movable property and in alternate for
compensation equal to the value of property whereas relief under Section 8 is for delivery of
property (specific movable property).
 Under Section7, a suit to recover possession can be maintained against the owner of property.
Section 8 does not contemplate a suit against the owner.
60
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS
The contract is an agreement upon consideration to do or not to do particular thing. If the person on
whom this contractual obligation rests, fails to discharge it, other party has right either to insist on the
literal and actual performance of the contract or to obtain compensation for the non-performance of it.
The former is called the ‘Specific Performance.’
The subject- matter of Specific performance of contracts is dealt in Part II, Chapter II of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 which may be classified under the following heads-
(a) Contracts which may be specifically enforced.

(b) Contracts which cannot be specifically enforced.
(c) Parties to an action for specific performance.
(d) Specific performance with a variation.
(e) Discretion of the Court in ordering specific performance.
Section 9 - Defences respecting suits for relief based on contract.
Section 9 simply declares that defendant may raise any ground available in law to him while
resisting suit for specific performance. In other words all those pleas as recognized under law of
contract like incapacity of parties, the absence of concluded contract, the uncertainty of the contract,
coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, illegality etc. are available to defendant in a suit for specific
performance.
CONTRACTS WHICH MAY BE SPECIFICALLY PERFORMED
The remedy of specific performance being an equitable remedy is at the discretion of the Court. But in
the exercise of this discretion, the Court is governed by certain principles. The circumstances in which
specific performance may be granted are enumerated in Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act.
Section 10 - Cases in which specific performance of contract enforceable
Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the specific performance of any contract may, in the
discretion of the court, be enforced-
(a) when there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by the non-
performance of the act agreed to be done; or
(b) when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-
performance would not afford adequate relief.
Explanation- Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall presume-
i. that the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by
compensation in money; and
61
ii. that the breach of a contract to transfer movable property can be so relieved except in the
following cases:-
(a) Where the property is not an ordinary article of commerce, or is of special value or
interest to the plaintiff, or consists of goods which are not easily obtainable in the
market;
(b) Where the property is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff.
No standard for ascertaining damages: Section 10 provides for specific performance of contract in
those cases where there is no standard for ascertaining damages or where the money cannot form
adequate relief for the non-performance. Also, the enforcement of the specific performance is at
discretion of the court and no one claim it as a matter of right.
Pecuniary compensation not adequate relief: The specific performance will also be granted when
compensation in money is not adequate relief in facts and circumstances of case.
Conditions for applicability of Section 10-
1. The suit must relate to the specific performance of contract;

2. The case must fall within any of the Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.10;
3. The case must in the discretion of the court, be fit one to order specific performance; and
4. The case must not fall within any of the Section of Chapter II which prohibits specific
performance.
Explanation to Section 10 carries a presumption in favour of plaintiff and declares that it should
be presumed that compensation does not afford adequate relief in following cases:
A. In all cases where the contract is for the transfer of immovable property.
B. In case of movable property where-

(a) The property is not an ordinary article but an article of special value or of special interest
to plaintiff.
(b) The article is not easily obtainable in the market.
(c) The property is held by the defendant as an agent or trustee of the plaintiff.
However, these presumptions can be rebutted by the defendant by proving the contrary.
DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY No person can sue for specific performance if he cannot be sued for it,
whether because he is minor or for any other reason. The contract to be specifically enforced must be
mutual. The doctrine of mutuality means the contract must be mutually enforceable by each party
against the other.
Section 12: Specific performance of part of contract

The general rule of equity is that the court will not compel specific performance of a contract
unless it can enforce the whole contract. The rule laid in above case is contained in Section 12(1) of the
Specific Relief Act which says court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of contract, except
in cases coming under on or other of the three proceeding sections. To this general rules there are
certain exceptions which proceed upon the principle of that ‘equity looks to the substance of contract
and requires substantial compliance with its conditions rather than its literal fulfilment’ and these are
embodied in Section 12 (2), (3) and (4).
62
Section 13: Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title.
This section is based on the extended principle what is known in English Law as ‘Doctrine of
feeding the grant by estoppel’. This doctrine found acceptance in India, in the form of Section 43 of
Transfer of property Act. The right of the purchaser or lessee against the person with no title or
imperfect title has been enumerated in Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act. A contract may be
specifically enforced even though the promisor had no title or imperfect title at the time of the contract.
The promisor is bound to comply with the terms of the contract if he subsequently acquires the power
of performing the contract.
Section 14: Contracts not specifically enforceable
1) The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:-

(a) a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief;
(b) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which is so dependent on the
personal qualifications or volition of the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the
court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms;
(c) a contract which is in its nature determinable;
(d) a contract the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the
court cannot supervise.
2) Save as provided by the Arbitration Act, 1940, no contract to refer present or future differences to
arbitration shall be specifically enforced; but if any person who has made such a contract (other
than an arbitration agreement to which the provisions of the said Act apply) and has refused to
perform it, sues in respect of any subject which he has contracted to refer, the existence of such
contract shall bar the suit.
3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), the
court may enforce specific performance in the following cases:-
(a) where the suit is for the enforcement of a contract,-
i. to execute a mortgage or furnish any other security for security for securing
the repayment of any loan which the borrower is not willing to repay at once:
Provided that where only a part of the loan has been advanced the lender is willing to
advance the remaining part of the loan in terms of the contract; or
ii. to take up and pay for any debentures of a company;
(b) where the suit is for,-

i. the execution of a formal deed of partnership, the parties having commenced to carry
on the business of the partnership; or
ii. the purchase of a share of a partner in a firm,
(c) where the suit is for the enforcement of a contract for the construction of any building or
the execution of any other work on land:
Provided that the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:-
i. the building or other work is described in the contract in terms sufficiently precise to
enable the court to determine the exact nature of the building or work;
ii. the plaintiff has a substantial interest in the performance of the contract and the
interest is of such a nature that compensation in money for non-performance of the
contract is not an adequate relief; and
63
iii. the defendant has, in pursuance of the contract, obtained possession of the whole or
any part of the land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be
executed.
 The effect of the provisions in Section 14 can be stated in terms of certain propositions,
namely, that in the case of following contracts the relief of specific performance cannot be
allowed:
1. Where compensation is adequate: Courts will not order specific performance of a contract
where the aggrieved party can be adequately compensated in terms of money.
2. Contracts involving personal skill: It is not possible for the court to supervise the
performance of a contract which runs into minute and numerous details or is dependent upon
the personal qualifications of the promisor or is otherwise of volitional nature. Contracts of
employment, contracts of personal service, contracts involving performance of artistic skill,
like contract to sing, to paint, to act are ordinary examples of things requiring personal skill
and therefore beyond the capacity of the judicial process to enforce their actual performance.
The only choice in such cases is to be content with damages.
3. Contracts of Determinable Nature: Specific performance is not ordered of a contract which is

in its nature determinable. Thus no order of specific performance is likely to be passed when
the contract is revocable at the option of the opposite party.
4. Contracts requiring constant supervision: A contract cannot be specifically enforced where it

involves the performance of continuous duty which the court cannot supervise. Contracts
requiring the performance of a continuous duty extending over period longer than three years
from the date of the contract cannot be specifically enforced.
5. Construction contracts: Subject to certain exceptions, the court will not enforce specific
performance to build, repair, or maintain works or building both because-
(a) Specific performance is decreed only where the party wants the thing in specie and cannot
have it in any other way; and
(b) Such contracts are for the most part so uncertain that the court will be unable to enforce
its own decree.
PARTIES TO AN ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Section 15: Who may obtain specific performance
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, the specific performance of a contract may be obtained
by-
(a) any party thereto;
(b) the representative in interest or the principal, of any party thereto:
Provided that where the learning, skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is a
material ingredient in the contract, or where the contract provides that his interest shall not be
assigned, his representative in interest of his principal shall not be entitled to specific performance of
the contract, unless such party has already performed his part of the contract, or the performance
thereof by his representative in interest, or his principal, has been accepted by the other party;
(c) where the contract is a settlement on marriage, or a compromise of doubtful rights between
members of the same family, any person beneficially entitled there under;
64
(d) where the contract has been entered into by a tenant for life in due exercise of a power, the
remainder-man;
(e) a reversioner in possession, where the agreement is a covenant entered into with his predecessor
in title and the reversioner is entitled to the benefit of such covenant;
(f) a reversioner in remainder, where the agreement is such a covenant, and the reversioner is
entitled to the benefit thereof and will sustain material injury by reason of its breach;
(g) when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes amalgamated with
another company, the new company which arises out of the amalgamation;
(h) when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation, entered into a contract for the
purposes of the company, and such contract is warranted by the terms of the incorporation, the
company:
Provided that the company has accepted the contract and has communicated such acceptance to
the other party to the contract.
It is a general rule that a contract cannot be got enforced except by a party to the contract. This
general rule is embodied in clause (a) of Section 15. But there are certain exceptions to this general
rule. These exceptions are contained in clause (b) to (h) of the section and contain list of persons who
although not a party to the contract, are entitled to obtain specific performance of contract.
Section 16: Personal bars to relief: Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of
a person-
(a) who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach; or
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his
part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or
in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or
(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform
the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the
performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation- For the purposes of clause (c)-

i. where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to
actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed
by the court;
ii. the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the
contract according to its true construction.
 In clause (a), Court of equity would refuse the specific performance not only for fraud but also
for trickiness for ‘he who comes for equity must come with clean hands.’
 In clause (b), the incapacity may be physical or mental or even legal.
 In clause (c), when a plaintiff in his suit for specific performance of the contract insists upon
the implementation of the terms of the contract but on his own does not disclose his readiness
and willingness to perform his own part of term, such contract cannot be enforced. It is
necessary for the party claiming specific performance to aver and prove that he has been all the
time ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
Section 17: Contract to sell or let property by one who has no title, not specifically enforceable
Section 18: Non-enforcement except with variation

Section 18 deals with cases in which the contract entered into is valid contract. In other words,
it is one in respect of which the remedy of damages is available. Section 18 does not apply unless there
65
is complete contract. It sets out the cases in which contracts cannot be enforced except with a variation
and there are three particular cases set out in which a contract may be enforced subject to variation,
such a variation being in favour of the defendant. But the remedy of specific performance is available
when the plaintiff is prepared to accept the variation pleaded by the defendant.
Ingredient summarized:
 Contract in writing. The section does not apply unless there is a complete contract.
 Defendant sets up a variation.
 The plaintiff is put to an election either to have his action for specific performance dismissed or
have it subject to such variation.
 But if plaintiff does not accept variation, he does not loose ordinary common law remedy of
damages.
DISCRETION OF THE COURT IN ORDERING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

It has been recognized on all hands that to decree specific performance is a matter of discretion
of the court. But it does not means that it is open to the court to do just what it pleases in an individual
case without regard to authority or principle.
Section 20: Discretion as to decreeing specific performance

1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to
grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary
but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of
appeal.
2) The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific
performance-
(a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into
the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are
such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the
defendant; or
(b) where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant
which he did not foresee, whereas its non-performance would involve no such hardship on
the plaintiff;
(c) where the defendant entered into the contract under circumstances which though not
rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce specific performance.
Explanation 1- Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the
defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within
the meaning of clause (a) or hardship within the meaning of clause (b).
Explanation 2- The question whether the performance of a contract would involve hardship on the
defendant within the meaning of clause (b) shall, except in cases where the hardship has resulted from
any act of the plaintiff subsequent to the contract, be determined with reference to the circumstances
existing at the time of the contract.
3) The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where the
plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of
specific performance.
4) The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground
that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the other party.
66
The section gives to the Court discretion in the matter of decreeing specific performance. This
discretion is not arbitrary, but sound and reasonable, guided by the judicial principles. Under no
circumstances, the court should exercise its discretion, where it would be improper. Mere on the
ground that the contract is unenforceable court can’t refuse relief to any party. The discretion of the
court is to decide whether enforcement of the contract in the present circumstances is fair and if the
contract is fair and reasonable character of the plaintiff has been good then the discretion of the court
has no application.
Section 21: Power to award compensation in certain cases
1) In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff may also claim compensation for its
breach, either in addition to, or in substitution of, such performance.
2) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought not to be granted, but that
there is a contract between the parties which has been broken by the defendant, and that the
plaintiff is entitled to compensation for that breach, it shall award him such compensation
accordingly.
3) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought to be granted, but that is not
sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case, and that some compensation for breach of the contract
should also be made to the plaintiff, it shall award him such compensation accordingly.
4) In determining the amount of any compensation awarded under this section, the court shall be
guided by the principles specified in section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
5) No compensation shall be awarded under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such
compensation in his plaint: Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such
compensation in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the
plaint on such terms as may be just, for including a claim for such compensation.
Explanation-The circumstance that the contract has become incapable of specific performance does
not preclude the court from exercising the jurisdiction conferred by this section.
The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract, under Section 21 may also ask for
compensation in case of the breach of the contract, either in addition to or in substitution for such
performance but if the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance omits to ask for compensatory relief
and his suit for specific performance is dismissed them his subsequent suit for compensation will be
barred by the provisions of Section 24.
Section 22: Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc
Section 23: Liquidation of damages not a bar to specific performance

1) A contract, otherwise proper to be specifically enforced, may be so enforced, though a sum be
named in it as the amount to be paid in case of its breach and the party in default is willing to pay
the same, if the court, having regard to the terms of the contract and other attending
circumstances, is satisfied that the sum was named only for the purpose of securing performance
of the contract and not for the purpose of giving to the party in default an option of paying money
in lieu of specific performance.
2) When enforcing specific performance under this section, the court shall not also decree payment of
the sum so named in the contract.
67
Section 24: Bar of suit for compensation for breach after dismissal of suit for specific performance
The dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract or part thereof shall bar the plaintiff's
right to sue for compensation for the breach of such contract or part, as the case may be, but shall not
bar his right to sue for any other relief to which he may be entitled, by reason of such breach.
CHAPTER V: RECTIFICATION OF INSTRUMENTS
Section 26: When instrument may be rectified

1. When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract or other instrument in writing
(not being the articles of association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956, applies) does
not express their real intention, then-
(a) either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument
rectified; or
(b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue,
claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified; or
(c) a defendant in any such suit as is referred to in clause (b), may, in addition to any other
defence open to him, ask for rectification of the instrument.
2. If, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to be rectified under sub-section
(1), the court finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real
intention of the parties, the court may, in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument so as
to express that intention, so far as this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third
persons in good faith and for value.
3. A contract in writing may first be rectified, and then if the party claiming rectification has so
prayed in his pleading and the court thinks fit, may be specifically enforced.
4. No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be granted to any party under this section
unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where a party has not claimed any such relief
in his pleading, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the pleading on
such terms as may be just for including such claim.
Doctrine of Rectification: Rectification means correction of an error in an instrument in order to give

effect to the real intention of the parties. Where a contract has been reduced into writing, in pursuance
of a previous engagement and the writing, owing to fraud or mutual mistake, fails to express the real
intention of the parties, the court will rectify the writing instrument in accordance with their true
intent. Here the fundamental assumption is that there exists in between the parties a complete and
perfectly acceptable contract but the writing designed to embody it, either from fraud or mutual
mistake is incorrect or imperfect and the relief sought is to rectify the writing so as to bring it into
conformity with true intent.
Who can apply for rectification: The following persons may apply-
(a) Either party or his representative in interest
(b) The plaintiff in any suit
(c) A defendant in such suit
Conditions necessary for obtaining rectification are:-

 There must have been a complete agreement reached prior to the written instrument which is
sought to be rectified. There must be two distinct stages: a) an agreement, verbal or written, which
clearly expresses the final intention of the parties, and b) instrument which purports to embody
that intention.
68
 Both the parties must have intended, and still intending, that the exact terms of the prior contract
should be reduced to writing.
 Clear evidence of mistake common to both parties or of fraud must be there.
The principle on which the court acts in correcting instruments is that the parties are to be placed in
the position as that in which they would have stood if no error had been committed.
CHAPTER VI: DECLARATORY DECREES

Section 34: Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right
Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit
against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may
in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit
ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further
relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation-A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of
someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.
A declaratory decree is a mode of relief where there is no specific performance and no award of
compensation. There is only a declaration of rights of the parties without any consequential relief which
can be enforced by the execution of the decree. In other words, declaratory decrees are those where some
right is declared in favour of the plaintiff but nothing is sought to be paid or performed by the defendant.
Further, the declaration does not confer any new rights upon the plaintiff; it merely declares what he had
before.
OBJECT: The object of such decrees is that where a person’s status or legal character has been denied
or where a doubt has been created upon his titles to rights and interests in some property, he may have
the doubt removed by having his legal status or rights declared by the court. But it is not a matter of
absolute right to obtain a declaratory decree. It is purely the discretion of the Court. The object of
Section 34 is to perpetuate and strengthen testimony regarding title and protect it from adverse
attacks.
Essential requisites for a declaratory action

1. The plaintiff must be entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property.
2. The defendant should have denied or be interested in denying the character or title of the
plaintiff. It is this denial which gives a cause of action for declaratory relief.
3. The plaintiff is not in a position to claim further relief than mere declaration of his title, or
where he is so able to seek further relief, he seeking such relief also.
Section 35: Effect of declaration

A declaration made under this Chapter is binding only on the parties to the suit, persons
claiming through them respectively, and, where any of the parties are trustees, on the persons for
whom, if in existence at the date of the declaration, such parties would be trustees.
According to this section, the declaratory decree is not binding on everybody in the world. It
cannot bind strangers and as such a declaration will not operate as a judgement in rem and will be
binding only between parties to the suit and their representatives. Hence, a declaratory decree is
binding between the parties inter se and its effect does not bind persons who are not connected with
the suit in question.
69
CHAPTER VII: INJUNCTIONS

An injunction is a specific order of the court forbidding the commission of a wrong threatened or
the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun, or in some cases, when it is called
mandatory injunction requiring active restitution of the former state of things. An injunction is a
judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing. In
former case it is called restrictive injunction and in the latter case it is called mandatory injunction.
Section 36: Preventive relief how granted

Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual
Section 37: Temporary and perpetual injunctions

1. Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until the further
order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the
merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right,
or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.
CHAPTER VIII: PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS
Section 38: Perpetual injunction when granted

1. Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction
may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour,
whether expressly or by implication.
2. When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and
provisions contained in Chapter II.
3. When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of,
property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:-
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be
caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
Section 39: Mandatory injunctions

When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain
acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to
prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.
Section 40: Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction

1. The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under section 38, or mandatory injunction under
section 39, may claim damages either in addition to, or in substitution for, such injunction and the
court may, if it thinks fit, award such damages.
2. No relief for damages shall be granted under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such relief
in his plaint:
Provided that where no such damages have been claimed in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage
of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for
including such claim.
70
3. The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff shall
bar his right to sue for damages for such breach.
Section 41: Injunction when refused-

An injunction cannot be granted-
(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the
suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a
multiplicity of proceedings;
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not
subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;
(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced;
(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a
nuisance;
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of
proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the
assistance of the court;
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.
Section 42: Injunction to perform negative agreement

Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41, where a contract comprises an
affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to
do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the
affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative
agreement:
Provided that, the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.
71

Law of Contract I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law of Contract I PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law of Contract I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class –LL.B. I SEM.

Subject – Law of Contract-I

 History and Nature of Contracted Obligations

UNIT II: CAPACITY TO CONTRACT

UNIT III: VOID AND VOIDABLE AGREEMENTS

 Injurious to person and property

UNIT IV: CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

 Contractual obligations – performance, remedies, discharge of,

UNIT V: SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

 Specific performance of contract

Contract relating to contract of Sale of Goods 76 to 124*

Special kinds of Contracts (for example: Indemnity,

PRESENT FORM OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

“Every agreement and promise enforceable at law is a

“A contract is an agreement between two or more persons

“A contract is an agreement creating and defining obligation

AGREEMENT + ENFORCEABILITY BY LAW = CONTRACT

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRACT & AGREEMENT

BASIS OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT

The scope of a contract is Its scope is relatively wider, as it includes

VARIOUS DEFINITIONS UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

 Contract [Section 2(h)]: An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.

 Void agreement [Section 2(g)]: An agreement not enforceable by law is void.

 Voidable contract [Section 2(i)]: An agreement is a voidable contract if it is enforceable by law

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT

There are two basic essential elements of a contract-

WHAT IS ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTRACT??

Agreements are two types-

Example: X invited Y to a dinner Y accepted the invitation. It is a social agreement. If X fails to

RELEVANT CASES ON THIS POINT:

(b) Persons of unsound mind, and

4. Lawful Consideration: An agreement must be supported by lawful consideration. Consideration

ON THE BASIS OF ON THE BASIS OF ON THE BASIS OF

A. On the basis of creation or formation-

3. Quasi Contracts or constructive contracts: It is contract in which there is no intention on

B. On the basis of validity or enforceability-

5. Unenforceable Contract: It is contract which is otherwise valid, but cannot be enforced

 EFFECT ON COLLATERAL AGREEMENT: In case of illegal agreements, even the collateral

C. On the basis of execution or performance-

D. On the basis of liability-

DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID AGREEMENT AND VOID CONTRACT

BASIS OF VOID AGREEMENT VOID CONTRACT

DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID AGREEMENT AND VOIDABLE CONTRACT

BASIS OF VOID AGREEMENT VOIDABLE CONTRACT

Parties do not have right to Generally, right for restitution is available if

DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID CONTRACT & VOIDABLE CONTRACT

BASIS OF VOID CONTRACT VOIDABLE CONTRACT

DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOID AND ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

BASIS OF VOID AGREEMENT ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

As per Sec 2(a) of Indian Contract Act-

LEGAL RULES AS TO VALID OFFER

LAPSE OF OFFER/MODES OF REVOCATION OF OFFER (SECTION 6)

2. By lapse of time: An offer lapse-

Acceptance is defined under Sec. 2(b) of Indian Contract act:

Who may accept?

How to make acceptance?

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID ACCEPTANCE

GENERAL RULES AS TO COMMUNICATION OF OFFER, ACCEPTANCE AND REVOCATION

1. Communication of proposal is complete- When it comes to the knowledge of the person to