Indian Contract Act 1872 Important Case Laws English

(1)
Business Law  CA Foundation
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Balfour v. Balfour,
Intention to create legal relationship. When the two parties
enter into an agreement, their intention must be to create legal
relationship between them. If there is no such intention on the
part of the parties, there is not contract between them.
Agreements of a social or domestic nature do not contemplate
legal relationship. As such they are not contracts.
Example:- A husband promised to pay his wife a household
allowance of £ 30 every month. Later the parties separated and
the husband failed to pay the amount. The wife sued for the
allowance. Held, agreements such as there were outside the
realm of contract altogether.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

When an offer is made to the world at large, it is called a
general offer.
Example: - A Company advertised in several newspapers that a
reward of £ 100 would be given to any person who contracted
influenza after using the smoke balls of the company according
to its printed direction. One Mrs. Carlill used the smoke ball
according to the directions of the company but contracted
influenza. Held, she could recover the amount as by using the
smoke balls she had accepted the offer.
2| Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi

Nahata Professional Academy Indore,
Lalman v. Gauri Dutt,

Offer must be communicated. An offer, to be complete, must
be communicated to the person to whom it made. Unless as
offer as communicated to the offeree by the offeror or by his
duly authorized agent, there can be no acceptance of it.
An acceptance if an offer, in ignorance of the, is no acceptance
and does not confer any right on the acceptor.
Example: - S sent his servant, L to trace his missing nephew. He
then announced that anybody who traced his nephew would
be entitled to a certain reward. L traced the boy in ignorance of
this announcement. Subsequently when he came to know of the
reward, he claimed it. Held, he was not entitled to the reward.
Harvey v. Facey
A statement of price is not an offer. A mere statement of price is
not construed as an offer to sell
Example:- Three telegrams were exchanged between Harvey
and Facey.
1. “will you sell us your Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest
cash price-answer paid.”
2. “Lowest price for bumper hall pen £ 900.”
3. “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of £ 900
asked by you.”
Held, there was no concluded contract between Harvey and
Facey.
Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi |3

Dunlop v. Higgins,
Loss of letter of acceptance in postal transit
Acceptance is complete as against the offeror as soon as the
letter of acceptance is posted. The contract is complete even if
the letter of acceptance goes astray or is lost through an
accident in the post. But in order to bind the offeror, it is
important that the letter of acceptance is correctly addressed.
Sufficiently stamped and posted. If it is not correctly addressed
and sufficiently stamped, the communication of acceptance is
not complete within the meaning of Sec. 4 even if it is posted.
Lord Cottenheam L. C., in delivering the judgement in the
House of Lords in Dunlop v. Higgins enunciated the principle in
the following words:
“If the letter of acceptance is posted in due time, the acceptor is
not responsible for any casualties in the post office…., if the
party accepting the offer puts his letter into post on the correct
day, has be not done everything he was bound to do? How can
he be responsible for that over which he has no control?
Durga Prasad v. Baldeo,

It must move at the desire of the promisor. An act constituting
consideration must have been done at the desire or request of
the promisor. If it is done at the instance of a third party or
without the desire of the promiser, it will not be a good
consideration.

Example:- B spent some money on the improvement of a

market at the desire of the collector of the district. In
consideration of this D who was using the market promised to
pay some money to B. Held, the agreement was void being
without consideration.
Chinnaya v. Ramayya,
It may move from the promise or any other person.
Consideration may move from the promise or any other
person, i.e. even a stranger. This means that as long is
consideration for a promise it is immaterial who has furnished
it. But the stranger to consideration will be able to sue only if
he is a party to the contract.
Example:- An old lady, by a deed of gift, made over certain
property to her daughter D, under the direction that she should
pay her aunt, P (Sister of old lady), a certain sum of money
annually. The same day D entered into an agreement with P to
pay her the agreed amount. Later, D refused to pay the amount
on the plea that no consideration had moved from P to D.
Held, P was entitled to maintain suit as consideration had
moved from the, old lady, sister of P to the daughter, D
Rajlukhy v. Bhoothnath,
Nearness of relationship, however, does not necessarily import
natural love and affection.
Example:- A Hindu husband, after referring to quarrels and
disagreement between him and his wife, executed a registered

document in favor of his wife agreeing to pay her for

maintenance, but no consideration moved from the wife. Held,
the agreement was void for want of consideration as the
essential requirement that the agreement is made on account of
natural love and affection between the parties was missing.
Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose,

An agreement with or by a minor is void and inoperative ab
initio. The privy Council affirmed this view most emphatically
in Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose, In this case, a minor
mortgaged his house in favour of a money-lender to secure a
loan of Rs.20,000 out of which the mortgagee (The money-
lender) paid the minor sum of Rs. 8,000. Subsequently the
minor sued for setting aside the mortgage, stating that he was
underage when the executed the mortgage. Held, the mortgage
was void and, therefore, it was cancelled, Further the money-
lender’s request for the repayment of the amount advanced to
the minor as part of the consideration for the mortgage was
also not accepted.
Bala Debi v. S. Majumdar, A.I.R.,

If there is no consensus ad idem, there IS no contract. One such
circumstance which interferes with consensus ad idem is
mistake.
Exmaple:- An illiterate woman executed a deed of gift in favour
of her nephew under the impression that she was executing a
deed authorizing her nephew to manage her lands. The
evidence showed that the woman never intended to execute

such a deed of gift, nor was the deed ever read or explained to
he, Held, the deed was void and inoperative Bala Debi v. S
Majumdar, A.I.R.,
Smith v. Chadwick,
The other party must have been induced to act upon the
representation or assertion. A mere falsehood is not enough to
give a right of action. It must have induced the other party to
act upon it. The other party cannot shut his eyes to the obvious
defects or flaws which he could have easily ascertained by
reasonable investigation or inspection.
Example: - A bought shares in a company on the faith of a
prospectus which contained an untrue statement that one B was
a director of the company. A had never heard of B and,
therefore, the statement was immaterial from his point of view.
A’s claim for damages in this case was dismissed because the
untrue statement had not induced A to buy the shares Smith v.
Chadwick.
Cundy v. Lindsay,
Mistake as to the identity of the person contracted with. It is a
fundamental rule of law that if one of the parties represents
himself to be some person other than he really is, there is a
mistake as to the identity of the person contracted with. If, for
example, A intends to contract with B but finds he has
contracted with C, there is no contract if the identity of B was a

material element of the contract and C knows it. Likewise if A

make an offer to B, C cannot give himself any rights in respect
of the contract by accepting the offer. If he does so, the
agreement will be void.
Example:- Blenkarn ordered by letter goods from Lindsay and
signed it in such a way that Lindsay believed it came from the
well-known firm of Blenkiron & Co. Held, there was no
contract between Lindsay and Blenkarn as Lindsay never
intended to deal with Blenkarn, having never heard of him
Cundy v. Lindsay.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd.

FACTS:
Dunlop, a tire manufacturing company, made a contract with
Dew for sale of tires at a discounted price on condition that
they would not resell the tires at less than the listed price and
that any reseller who wanted to buy them from Dew had to
agree not to sell at the lower price either. Dew sold the tires to
Selfridge on the same Price Maintenance Terms, but Selfridge
proceeded to sell the tires below the price he promised to sell
them for.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether there was any contract between Dunlop and
Selfridge?
(2) Whether Dew contracted with Selfridge in the capacity of an
agent of Dunlop?

(3) Whether Dunlop gave any consideration by itself or through

the promisee, acting as his agent in giving it?
HELD:
(1) Dunlop was acting as complete stranger to the contract
between Selfridge and Dew and thus on account of privity
of contract couldn’t sue Selfridge for breach of its agreement
with Dew. It was a mere beneficiary to it on account of
Price Maintenance Clause.
(2) On whatever terms the contract between Selfridge and Dew
was made was to be solely determined by them and was
not in any way regulated or stipulated by Dunlop apart
from the Price Maintenance Clause. While Dew was
assumed to be acting as agent while inserting PMC in the
contract it was acting as principal while stipulating terms of
the contract with Selfridge–but as held by Court, a person
can’t contract in two capacities in the same agreement.
Hence, HoL held that Dunlop wasn’t acting as the
undisclosed principal of Dew.
(3) Dew had the title to goods manufactured by Dunlop
independently of any contract with Selfridge. They were
free to sell the tyres to anyone they wished. Secondly, the
consideration by way of discount was given wholly out of
Dew and neither directly nor indirectly out of Dunlop.
Neither Dunlop gave any consideration directly to Selfridge
nor through Dew as his agent. Further since all the terms of
the contract including whether to give any discount to
Selfridge or not was solely stipulated by Dew on its own

account and not as Dunlop’s agent, therefore HoL

unanimously held appellant’s contention that their
permitting and enabling Dew, with the knowledge and
desire of Selfridge, to sell to the latter on the terms of its
contract was consideration moving from Dunlop to
Selfridge, as unsustainable.

10 | Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi

Indian Contract Act 1872 Important Case Laws English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Contract Act 1872 Important Case Laws English

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

Indian Contract Act 1872 Important Case Laws English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(1)

Business Law  CA Foundation

Indian Contract Act, 1872

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

2| Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi

Lalman v. Gauri Dutt,

Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi |3

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo,

4| Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi

Example:- B spent some money on the improvement of a

Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi |5

document in favor of his wife agreeing to pay her for

Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose,

Bala Debi v. S. Majumdar, A.I.R.,

evidence showed that the woman never intended to execute

Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi |7

material element of the contract and C knows it. Likewise if A

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd.

8| Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi

(3) Whether Dunlop gave any consideration by itself or through

Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi |9

account and not as Dunlop’s agent, therefore HoL

10 | Author: CA. Aseem Trivedi

You might also like