Scribd
Upload
23 views3 pages

Document 2

Uploaded by

Khushi Choudhary
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views3 pages

Document 2

Uploaded by

Khushi Choudhary
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

1

NAME: KHUSHI CHOUDHARY

JGU ID: 24014738

LAW OF CONTRACT

L.L.B – SEC A

Pertaining to the facts of the case, the first issue in the given facts is
whether a contract between Aman and Neha and whether the claimant
could claim the reward, given that she was unaware about the offer. The
rule that applies here is for the acceptance to be valid, it should be made
in response to the offer . One cannot accept an offer when one does not
know it exists. The case law which will be referred to here is R V.
Clarke(1927) . The facts of the case include a public proclamation
offering a reward for information that would lead to the conviction of the
murderer. Clarke, who was under suspicion of the murder of two people
was aware of the reward but admitted that he had no intention to earn the
reward at the time of providing information. Thus , the government
refused, arguing that Clarke did not provide the information with the
intention of claiming the reward but rather to clear himself of a false
charge of murder. The court held that unless the petitioner had performed
the conditions of the offer acting on the faith or in reliance upon the offer,
there was no acceptance of the offer and thus no contract was formed
between the parties. Clark’s actions were driven by the desire to clear
himself and not by the reward. In the given facts , Neha was unaware of
the promotional offer while performing the act. Since Neha did not know
about the offer she could not have the intention to accept it by performing
the act as Clarke did not perform the act with the intention to receive the
reward.Without knowledge, Neha’s actions did not constitute acceptance
of Aman’s offer. Therefore since Neha performed the task without
awareness of the promotional offer, there may be no binding contract. The
second case law that is applicable is Lalman Shukla V. Gauri
Durt(1913). The facts of the case include, the nephew of Gauri Dutt went
missing and she sent Lalman to search for the boy. After he left, she
announced a reward to pay any person who found the boy. Lalman,
unaware of this reward, found the boy. The rule applicable to the law
states that the knowledge of the offer is crucial in order to convert a
proposal into an enforceable agreement. The court held that the plaintiff
had no knowledge regarding the reward and thus there can be no valid
contract without acceptance of the offer.As seen in the cases of R V Clarke
and Lalman Shukla V Gauri Dutt it can be concluded that Neha had no
binding contract with Aman as she had no knowledge of the offer. The
2

agreement between Aman and Priya is unenforceable due to her age as a


minor. The issue is whether the agreement was void or not under the
Indian Contract Act? According to Section 11 of the Indian Contracts Act,
every person is competent to contract who is at 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. The
case of Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose(1903), is a landmark case
that deals with the concept of minor’s agreement that is void ab initio
which means void since the very beginning. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor,
had mortgaged his property to Brahmo Dutta. When he later sought to
void the contract, the court ruled in his favour, declaring the agreement
with the minor void ab initio, or void from the outset.The Privy Council
held that the contract was void because a minor is incapable of
contracting as per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act . It was also
decided by the court that if the other party had knowledge about the
minority of the other party, the agreement is void from the day of
execution. Thus the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose(1903)
establishes that Priya’s agreement with Aman is void because she is a
minor.

The third issue is whether Karan agreeing to Aman’s original terms after
making a counter offer constitutes a binding offer ?The case law that will
be applied is Harvey v. Facey(1893) . The issue in this case is can the
reply by facey about the lowest amount of the bumper hall pen be
constituted as an offer capable of acceptance? The rule states that the
mere writing of the lowest amount one might accept does not constitute
an offer . The Privy Council held that there was no binding contract
between the parties. Facey’s telegram indicated the lowest price he was
willing to consider and it did not constitute an offer to sell. Lord Morris
further explains that a contract requires mutual agreement on all
essential terms. The telegram was merely an invitation to offer and that
the telegram did not state any terms and conditions except to state the
lowest amount.There was no offer that could have been accepted by
Harvey and there was thus no valid agreement.Harvey’s telegram was an
offer to Facey after Facey stated his lowest price and Facey could thus
accept or reject, in this situation he chose the latter.

In the case of Felthouse v Bindley(1862) the issue was whether silence


or a failure to reject an offer amounted to acceptance. The rule states that
acceptance must be communicated and it cannot be imposed due to the
silence of one of the parties . It was held that there was no contract for
the ownership right of the horse since the beginning as there was no
contract which was to be accepted. Mere silence cannot be assumed as an
acceptance of the offer . Thus , Aman’s silence after Karan’s counter offer
3

does not imply acceptance of any contract nor does it create an obligation
for Aman to sell later . In the case of Hyde V Wrench (1840), the issue
here was whether the defendant was obligated to fulfil the initial offer
even after the plaintiff submitted a counter offer in pursuance of the
original offer. The court dismissed the claims and held that there was no
binding contract for the farm between Hyde and Wrench. It was stated
that when a counter offer is made, it supersedes the original offer . The
original offer is not available. Thus, Karan’s counter offer to Aman just as
Hyde’s counter offer to Wrench invalidated the original offer.

Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, consideration is essential


for a contract to be enforceable. The consideration for Ravi’s original
contract was ₹72 lakhs, payable upon completion of the catering
services.However, the additional ₹1 lakh demanded by Ravi lacks fresh
consideration, as he was already obligated to provide catering services for
the agreed-upon amount. A promise to do something one is already
legally obligated to do cannot serve as fresh consideration.Thus, Aman's
verbal agreement to pay an additional ₹1 lakh lacks consideration and
may not be enforceable.

Therefore, it has been established that an agreement becomes a contract


when there is a mutual consent that is Section 13 to 22, a lawful objective
which is in section section 23 to 30 , consideration dealt in section 2(d)
and section 25 and competent parties included in section 11 and 12.

You might also like