With changing social norms of legitimacy in

every society, including ours, what was

illegitimate in the past may be legitimate
today.”

— Honourable Justice A.K.Ganguly in

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarju
The first time when the Supreme Court held the

legitimacy of children born out of live-in relationship

was in S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, the

Supreme Court had said, “If a man and woman are living

under the same roof and cohabiting for some years, there

will be a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence

Act that they live as husband and wife and the children

born to them will not be illegitimate.

1. Chinnaya vs. Ramayya (Madras High Court-1882)

Rule of Law: It does not matter who furnishes the consideration. The
consideration may be moved by the promisee himself or any other
person.

A, an old lady, by a deed of gift, granted certain property to her

daughter R. The terms of the deed stipulated that R will pay an
annuity of Rs. 653 to A‟s sister C. On the same day, R entered into
an agreement with C to pay her the sum directed by A. The
stipulated sum was however not paid and C sued to recover it. R
contended that no consideration was moved by C to her. Madras
High Court held that the words “the promisee or any other person”
in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, made it clear that
consideration need not move from the promisee only and C was
entitled to recover the amount. The consideration furnished by C‟s
sister was enough to enforce the agreement between C and R.
2. Kedar Nath vs. Gorie Mohammad (Calcutta High Court-
1886)

In order to construct a town hall at Howrah, the commissioner of

Howrah Municipality started to obtain necessary fund by public
subscription. A also promised to subscribed Rs. 100 to fund by
signing his name in the subscription book for the purpose. On the
faith of the promised subscriptions, the secretary of the town hall
construction committee engaged a contractor for construction of
town hall and thus, incurred liability. A refused to pay his
subscription. Held, engaging a contractor and starting the
construction work

Rule of Law: An agreement without consideration will be perfectly

valid and binding if, on the faith of the promise, the promisee takes
definite steps in furtherance of the Object on the faith of the
promise to subscribe was sufficient consideration. Hence, A was
liable to pay the amount to the extent of the liability incurred by the
promise.

3. Offer and Invitation to Treat: Harvey v. Facey

Can a mere quotation of price be considered an offer?

In this case, the petitioner, Harvey communicated with the

defendant, Facey, about a Hall Pen through telegram, saying “”Will
you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer
paid”. The same day, Facey responded with the price of the Pen to
be £900. To which, the appellant replied, “We agree to buy Bumper
Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please
send us your title deed in order that we may get early possession.”
The defendant refused to sell at that price that they had initially
quoted. It was finally held in this case that no contract came into
existence between both the parties because their exchange of
telegrams was merely an informational exchange where the
appellant asked for the price of the Hall Pen and the defendant
quoted the price. Therefore the appellant had no right to sue.

4. Offer and Counter Offers: Hyde v. Wrench

This is a leading case eliciting the concept of offers and

counter-offers.

In this case, Wrench, the defendant offered to sell his farm to the
petitioner, Hyde for £1000. The petitioner declined the offer. The
defendant again reinstated his offer for selling the farm at £1000 to
the petitioner’s agent stating that it is the final offer from their side.
The petitioner, through a letter, offered to buy the farm for £950.
The defendant refused to sell the farm at that price. The petitioner,
several days later, offered to buy the farm at the initial price of
£1000. The defendant did not send any agreement to that and
refused to sell the farm, because of which the petitioner sued for
breach of contract. It was held that no contract came to arise
between the parties as the price was not agreed upon. Rather,
offers and counter-offers were exchanged.
5. Agreement, Not Contract: Balfour v. Balfour

Can a promise between married parties result in a legally

binding agreement?

In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Balfour, who used to live together as a
married couple in Sri Lanka, went for a vacation to England. During
this time, Mrs. Balfour developed rheumatic arthritis. The doctor
advised Mrs. Balfour to stay back in England as, according to him,
Sri Lankan climate would worsen her health. Before Mr. Balfour
returned to Sri Lanka, he promised to send £30 to her per month.
During their stay away, the parties drifted apart and separated. It
was held in this case that Mr. Balfour’s promise to pay a monthly
sum of £30 did not amount to a contract, as there was no intention
to create a legal relationship on part of either of the parties.

6. Communication of Offer is Necessary: Lalman Shukla v.

Gauri Dutt

In this case, the defendant’s nephew went missing and the

petitioner, who was a servant under the defendants was sent out in
his search to Hardwar. After sending the petitioner, the defendant
carried out an offer to the general public offering Rs. 501 to
whomsoever finds the missing boy. The Plaintiff found the boy and
helped return him back to his home. He had been paid the money
he spent in going to search for the boy, i.e., his travel expenses.
When he returned, he continued working for the defendants for
about six months. After six months, he sued the defendants for
paying him the prize money that was offered earlier. It was held that
the petitioner was not entitled to the prize money, as he was only
obliged by the duty he had as the defendant’s servant to find the
missing boy, and the reward was announced after he had
already been sent.

7. Minor’s Capacity to Contract: Mohori Bibee v. Damodar

Ghose

Is a minor’s agreement void ab initio?

In this case, the defendant, Darmodar Ghose, as a minor was the

sole owner of his property. His mother was his legally appointed
guardian. One Mr. Brahmo Dutt who was a moneylender, through
his agent Kedar Nath, lent Damodar Ghose a sum of Rs 20,000 at
12% interest per year. The loan was taken by way of mortgaging the
property. The same day this deal was made, Damodar Ghose’s
mother notified the appellant that Damodar was a minor, and
anybody who would get into an agreement with him would do so at
his own risk. Kedar Nath claimed that Damodar Ghose had lied
about his age on the date of the execution of this deed, which
turned out to be untrue. Therefore, Brahmo Dutt’s appeal was
dismissed and his request for the return of Rs 10,500 advanced
towards him was also rejected. It was held that a minor’s agreement
is void ab initio.
8.Doctrine of Frustration: Krell v. Henry

In this case, the defendant agreed to rent a flat of the plaintiff to

watch the coronation of King Edward VII from its balcony. The
plaintiff had promised that the view from the flat’s balcony will be
satisfying since the procession will be perfectly visible from the
room. The parties corresponded through letters and agreed on a
price of £75 for two days. Nowhere in their written correspondence
did the parties mention the coronation ceremony. The coronation
did not take place on the days the flat was booked for, as the kind
fell ill. The defendant refused to pay the whole sum of money that
the parties had agreed upon, for this reason. It was held that it
could be incurred from the circumstances surrounding the contract
what the implied purpose behind the contract was. Due to the
cancellation of the procession, the purpose of booking the flat was
frustrated.

9. Acceptance should be communicated: Felthouse v. Bindley

Can a person’s silence be considered acceptance?

In this case, the petitioner, Mr. Paul Felthouse wanted to purchase a

horse from his nephew, but the price he offered to pay for the horse
was less than that his nephew was willing to sell it for. The horse,
therefore, was still in his possession. The Uncle communicated his
offer through a letter, saying, “If I hear no more about him, I
consider the horse mine at £30.15s” The nephew could not respond
to the letter because he was busy with an auction on his farm.
Though he asked the auctioneer, Mr. Bindley, not to auction the
horses, he accidentally did. Mr. Felthouse then sued the defendant
for conversion of his property. The defendant argued that the horse
was not actually Mr. Felthouse’s property, as there existed no
contract between him and his nephew at the time of the auction
because Mr. Felthouse’s offer was not accepted by his nephew and
the nephew’s silence cannot be considered to be an acceptance of
the offer.

10. General Offer: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Balls Company

Can offers be open to the public in general? Can a general offer lead
to a contract?

In this case, a company carried out advertisements about their

product, carbolic smoke balls, that claimed that any person who
took the smoke balls in the prescribed manner (i.e., three times
daily for two weeks) will not catch influenza. In case someone does,
the company promised to pay 100 拢 to them immediately. To show
their sincerity regarding this offer, the company deposited a sum of
1000 拢 in a public bank. Now, the plaintiff, Carlill bought the smoke
balls and used them as prescribed in the advertisement, but still
ended up catching the flu. She filed a suit for the recovery of 100
sterling pound as promised in the advertisement. The company
denied the payment saying there existed no contract between them
and the plaintiff. It was held that a contract came into existence
between the plaintiff and the company as soon as the plaintiff
bought the smoke balls and used them as prescribed.