'A' and 'B' contract to marry each other.

Before the time fixed for the marriages 'A' becomes

Analysis
1. Contract to Marry: 'A' and 'B' contract to marry each other.
2. Supervening Insanity: 'A' becomes insane before the scheduled marriage date.

Enforceability
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: Doctrine of frustration - a contract becomes void if an unforeseen event renders it
impossible to perform.

Conclusion
The contract to marry would likely be considered void due to 'A's supervening insanity, making it
impossible for 'A' to give consent or perform the marriage. The contract would be unenforceable.

'A' the owner of Motor Car agreed to sell his motor car to 'B' for Rs. 2 lakhs. The car was
destroyed by fire before 'A' could sell the car to 'B'. Hence 'A' could not sell the car to 'B'. 'B' files
a suit against 'A' to recover damages for breach of contract. Decide.

Analysis
1. Contract to Sell: 'A' agrees to sell his motor car to 'B' for Rs. 2 lakhs.
2. Destruction of Subject Matter: The car is destroyed by fire before the sale.

Liability
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: Doctrine of frustration - a contract becomes void if an unforeseen event renders it
impossible to perform.

Conclusion
The contract would likely be considered void due to the destruction of the car, an unforeseen
event. 'A' would not be liable for damages, as the contract's performance has become
impossible. 'B's suit for damages would likely be dismissed.

'A' a fruit seller forgets a bag containing fruits in the house of 'B'. 'B' eats the fruits. 'A' files a suit
to recover the value of those fruits. Decide.

Analysis
1. Fruits Left Behind: 'A', a fruit seller, forgets a bag of fruits in 'B's house.
2. Consumption by 'B': 'B' eats the fruits.

Liability
1. Law of Torts: 'B' might be liable for conversion or trespass to goods.
2. Unjust Enrichment: 'B' has benefited at 'A's expense.

Conclusion
'A' might succeed in recovering the value of the fruits from 'B', as 'B' consumed the fruits without
permission. 'B's actions could be considered conversion or unjust enrichment. The court would
likely award 'A' the value of the fruits.

Raja has agreed to sell his car worth Rs. 3,00,000 for just Rs. 10,000 to Sham. Subsequently
Raja wants to cancel the contract on the ground that the consideration is not adequate. Advice
Raja.

Analysis
1. Contract to Sell: Raja agrees to sell his car worth Rs. 3,00,000 for Rs. 10,000 to Sham.
2. Inadequate Consideration: Raja wants to cancel the contract due to low price.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 25: Adequacy of consideration is not a ground for voiding a contract, as long as there
is some consideration.

Conclusion
Raja may not be able to cancel the contract solely based on inadequate consideration. If the
contract is otherwise valid (free consent, lawful consideration, etc.), Raja would likely be bound
by the agreement. Raja should consult a lawyer to explore potential options, such as proving
lack of free consent or other contractual defects.

"A" has invited "B" for a dinner and "B" has accepted the invitation. Subsequently "B" could not
attend the dinner. "A" has filed a suit against "B"to recover the dinner expenses. Can 'A' recover
the dinner expenses ?

Analysis
1. Social Invitation: 'A' invites 'B' for dinner, and 'B' accepts.
2. Non-Attendance: 'B' fails to attend the dinner.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Social Agreements: Generally, social agreements or invitations are not considered legally
binding contracts.

Conclusion
'A' would likely not be able to recover dinner expenses from 'B'. Since the invitation was social in
nature, it lacks the intention to create legal relations, a key element of a valid contract. The court
would likely dismiss 'A's suit.

Raju a shopkeeper, supplied to the wife and children of Ramu, a Lunatic with, necessaries
suitable to their condition in life. Raju intends to recover price of the goods from Ramu. Advise
him.

Analysis
1. Supply of Necessaries: Raju supplies goods to Ramu's wife and children, who are lunatic's
dependents.
2. Recovery from Ramu: Raju intends to recover the price from Ramu.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 68: If necessaries are supplied to a person incapable of contracting (like a lunatic) or
their dependents, the supplier can claim reimbursement from the property of the incapable
person.

Conclusion
Raju can likely recover the price of the goods from Ramu's property, as the goods supplied were
necessaries suitable for Ramu's wife and children's condition in life. Raju should file a claim
against Ramu's estate or property.

'A' kidnaps 'B' son and threatens to kill him, if 'B' does not sign the document of sale deed. Out
of fear 'B' signs the sale deed. Later 'B' wants to set aside the contract. Can he do so ? Decide.

Analysis
1. Coercion: 'A' kidnaps 'B's son and threatens to kill him unless 'B' signs the sale deed.
2. Undue Influence/Coercion: 'B' signs the document out of fear.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 15: Coercion includes threatening to commit an act forbidden by the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Section 19: A contract is voidable if consent is obtained through coercion.

Conclusion
'B' can likely set aside the contract, as his consent was obtained through coercion. The contract
would be voidable at 'B's option. 'B' should seek legal remedy to have the contract declared
void.
Rama promised to marry Seeta after the death of his father. But he married Suma when his
father was alive. Seeta wants to sue Rama for breach of contract. Advise Seeta.

Analysis
1. Promise to Marry: Rama promises to marry Seeta after his father's death.
2. Breach of Promise: Rama marries Suma while his father is alive.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: A contract that is opposed to public policy or morality is void.

Conclusion
Seeta's claim might be affected by the fact that Rama's promise was contingent on a future
event (his father's death). However, Rama's actions in marrying Suma could be seen as a
breach of promise. Seeta's chances of succeeding in a lawsuit would depend on various factors,
including whether Rama's promise was a genuine contractual agreement and whether Seeta
suffered any damages. Consulting a lawyer would provide more specific guidance.

'A' a famous singer agreed to sing in a programme arranged by 'B'. But before the programme
"A" died. Can 'B' compel "C"the son of "A" to sing in the programme ?

Analysis
1. Contract to Sing: 'A', a famous singer, agrees to sing in a program arranged by 'B'.
2. Death of 'A': 'A' dies before the program.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract becomes void if an unforeseen event renders it impossible to perform.

Conclusion
'B' cannot compel 'C', the son of 'A', to sing in the program. The contract between 'A' and 'B'
would likely be considered void due to 'A's death, making it impossible for 'A' (or 'C' on 'A's
behalf) to perform. Personal contracts like singing are typically not binding on heirs.

"A" has supplied one mobile to "B" who is a minor. Can "A" recover the price of the mobile from
"B"?

Analysis
1. Supply to Minor: 'A' supplies a mobile to 'B', who is a minor.
2. Recovery of Price: 'A' wants to recover the price from 'B'.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 11: A minor's agreement is void.
3. Section 68: A person supplying necessaries to a minor can claim reimbursement from the
minor's property.

Conclusion
If the mobile is considered a necessary item for 'B's life, 'A' might be able to recover the price
from 'B's property, not personally from 'B'. If the mobile is not a necessary item, 'A' may not be
able to recover the price.

"A" a famous dancer has agreed to dance in a festival conducted by "B". But due to ill health "A"
could not dance. "B" filed a suit against "A" for breach of contract. Decide.

Analysis
1. Contract to Dance: 'A', a famous dancer, agrees to dance in a festival conducted by 'B'.
2. Ill Health: 'A' is unable to dance due to ill health.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract becomes void if an unforeseen event renders it impossible to perform.

Conclusion
The contract would likely be considered void due to 'A's ill health, making it impossible for 'A' to
perform. 'A' would not be liable for damages. 'B's suit for breach of contract would likely be
dismissed.

"A sold his car worth Rs. 10,000/- for Rs. 5,000/- to 'B'. Can this agreement be questioned and if
so on what grounds ?

Analysis
1. Inadequate Consideration: 'A' sells his car worth Rs. 10,000 for Rs. 5,000 to 'B'.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 25: Adequacy of consideration is not a ground for voiding a contract, as long as there
is some consideration.

Conclusion
The agreement might not be questioned solely on the grounds of inadequate consideration, as
'A' has freely agreed to the price. However, 'A' might challenge the contract if he can prove:
1. Undue Influence (Section 16): If 'B' dominated 'A's will.
2. Coercion (Section 15): If 'A' was forced into the agreement.
3. Fraud or Misrepresentation (Section 17 and 18): If 'B' deceived 'A' about the car's value.
If 'A' cannot prove any of these, the contract would likely be enforceable.

'A' a minor, falsely represents to 'B' that he is a major and purchases some goods on credit. 'B'
files a suit to recover the price from 'A'. Decide.

Analysis
1. Minor's Misrepresentation: 'A', a minor, falsely represents himself as a major and purchases
goods on credit from 'B'.
2. Recovery of Price: 'B' files a suit to recover the price from 'A'.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 11: A minor's agreement is void.

Conclusion
'A's agreement to purchase goods would be considered void due to his minority. 'B' would likely
not be able to recover the price from 'A' personally or from his property (except for necessaries,
which is not specified here). 'B' should have verified 'A's age before extending credit. The court
would likely dismiss 'B's suit.

'P', 'Q' and 'R' jointly promise to pay 'Z' Rs. 3,000/-. 'P' and 'Q are not traceable. Can 'Z' compel
'R' to pay him in full?

Analysis
1. Joint Promise: 'P', 'Q', and 'R' jointly promise to pay 'Z' Rs. 3,000.
2. Non-Traceability of 'P' and 'Q': 'P' and 'Q' are not traceable.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 43: Joint promisors are jointly and severally liable unless the contract specifies
otherwise.

Conclusion
'Z' can compel 'R' to pay the full amount of Rs. 3,000, as joint promisors are jointly and severally
liable. 'R' can later recover the proportionate amounts from 'P' and 'Q' if they become traceable.

a has given a proposal to b to sell his car for one lakh b has accepted to purchase the car on
the occasion of his marriage is it a valid acceptance ?

Analysis
1. Conditional Acceptance: B accepts the proposal to purchase A's car, but on the occasion of
his marriage.
Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 7: Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.

Conclusion
B's acceptance seems to imply a condition (the occasion of his marriage), which might make the
acceptance conditional rather than absolute. If the condition is not fulfilled (e.g., the marriage
doesn't happen), the contract might not be enforceable. For a valid contract, B's acceptance
should be unconditional. Clarification on the condition's impact on the contract's enforceability
would be necessary.

a has given an advertisement to pay rs 5000 reward amount to any person who as searched his
absconded dog after reading the advertisement b has searched the dog a has refused to pay
the reward amount on the ground that b has not communicated the acceptance can b recover
the reward amount ?

Analysis
1. Unilateral Contract: A offers a reward of Rs 5,000 to anyone who finds his absconded dog
through an advertisement.
2. Performance by B: B finds the dog after reading the advertisement.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 8: Performance of the conditions of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal.

Conclusion
B can likely recover the reward amount. By finding the dog, B has performed the condition
specified in A's advertisement, which constitutes acceptance. Communication of acceptance is
not necessary in unilateral contracts like this reward offer. A would be obligated to pay the
reward amount to B.

a hs agreed to sell one article to b for rs 5000 but real value of the article is 50000 subsequently
a has argued that contract is invalid because he is an unsound mind person decide

Analysis
1. Contract for Sale: A agrees to sell an article worth Rs 50,000 to B for Rs 5,000.
2. A's Claim: A claims the contract is invalid due to being of unsound mind.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 12: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at
the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment
as to its effect upon his interests.

Conclusion
The contract's validity would depend on whether A was of sound mind at the time of contracting.
If A can prove he was not of sound mind and couldn't understand the contract's implications, the
contract might be voidable. However, if A was capable of understanding the contract, the
significant difference between the article's value and the sale price might raise questions about
Undue Influence or Fraud, but the contract itself wouldn't be invalid solely due to the price
difference.

a lady has agreed to work as a house keeper during day time and as prostitute during night
time with b b has agreed to pay 500 rs per month after one month b has refused to pay 500 rs a
can a recover 500 rs from b ?

Analysis
1. Contract for Services: A lady agrees to work as a housekeeper and provide other services at
night to B.
2. Payment Dispute: B refuses to pay the agreed Rs 500 after one month.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: A contract with an immoral or unlawful object is void.

Conclusion
If the contract involves prostitution, which is illegal in many jurisdictions in India, the contract
would likely be considered void due to its unlawful object. In such a case, the lady might not be
able to recover the payment through legal means. However, if the contract is solely for
legitimate housekeeping services, she might have a claim for payment. The specifics would
depend on the contract's terms and the legality of its object.

a who is a delaer of all types of oils has agreed to sell one tin of oil to b and b has agreed to pay
the price is it a valid contract ?

Analysis
1. Agreement to Sell: A, an oil dealer, agrees to sell one tin of oil to B.
2. B's Agreement to Pay: B agrees to pay the price.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 10: A contract is valid if it meets certain conditions, including lawful consideration and
object.
Conclusion
This appears to be a valid contract as it involves a lawful object (sale of oil) and consideration
(payment of price). Both parties have agreed to the terms, and there's no indication of any
invalidating factors like coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation. The contract would be
enforceable if either party fails to fulfill their obligations.

a and b have entered a wagering agreement in the wagering agreement a has lost the amount
of 5000 a has taken a loan of rs 5000 from c to pay the amount to b can c recover rs from a ?

Analysis
1. Wagering Agreement: A and B enter into a wagering agreement, which A loses.
2. Loan from C: A takes a loan of Rs 5,000 from C to pay B.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 30: Wagering agreements are void.

Conclusion
Since wagering agreements are void, A's payment to B would not be legally enforceable.
However, A's loan agreement with C is a separate contract. C can recover the loan amount from
A, as the loan agreement itself is not void. The fact that A used the loan for a wagering
agreement doesn't affect C's right to recover the loan, provided the loan agreement is valid and
lawful.

a has found one golden ring and a could not find out the true owner even after reasonable effort
subsequently a has sold the golden ring to b b has refused to pay price can a recover the price
from b ?

Analysis
1. Finder of Goods: A finds a golden ring and, despite reasonable efforts, cannot locate the true
owner.
2. Sale to B: A sells the golden ring to B.
3. B's Refusal to Pay: B refuses to pay the price.

Legal Position
1. Finder's Rights: A finder of goods has a right to sell the goods if the true owner is not found
despite reasonable efforts.
2. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.

Conclusion
A can likely recover the price from B. By selling the ring to B, A has transferred ownership, and
B is obligated to pay the agreed price. A's right to sell the ring stems from being unable to find
the true owner after reasonable efforts. B's refusal to pay would be a breach of contract,
allowing A to seek legal remedies for recovery of the price.

a hs kept one fruit box in the room of b by mistake b has consumed the fruits a has requested b
to pay the price of fruits but b has refused can a recover the price of fruits from b ?

Analysis
1. Mistaken Delivery: A mistakenly leaves a fruit box in B's room.
2. B's Consumption: B consumes the fruits.
3. A's Request for Payment: A requests B to pay for the fruits, but B refuses.

Legal Position
1. Quasi-Contract: In cases where one person benefits at another's expense without a contract,
the law may imply a quasi-contract to prevent unjust enrichment.

Conclusion
A might be able to recover the price of the fruits from B based on the principle of quasi-contract
or unjust enrichment. Since B has consumed the fruits and benefited from them, the law may
imply an obligation on B's part to compensate A for the value of the fruits. A would need to
prove that B's consumption of the fruits without payment would amount to unjust enrichment.

anand says ina conversation to ravi that he will give rs 25000 to a person whosoever marries his
daughter ravi maries anadhs daughter and files suit for recovery rs 25000 will he succeed ?

Analysis
1. Offer by Anand: Anand offers Rs 25,000 to whoever marries his daughter.
2. Ravi's Action: Ravi marries Anand's daughter.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. General Offer: A general offer can be accepted by anyone who fulfills the condition specified
in the offer.

Conclusion
Ravi might succeed in recovering Rs 25,000 if he can prove that he married Anand's daughter
with the knowledge of Anand's offer and in reliance on it. The key factor would be whether
Ravi's marriage was in response to Anand's offer. If Ravi can establish this connection, Anand
would be obligated to pay the promised amount. However, if the marriage was not influenced by
the offer, Anand might argue against paying the amount. The outcome would depend on the
specific circumstances and evidence presented.

a tells his wife that he would commit suicid if she doesnot transfer her personal assets to him
she does so under threat can the wife avoid this contract ?

Analysis
1. Threat by Husband: A threatens to commit suicide if his wife doesn't transfer her personal
assets to him.
2. Wife's Action: The wife transfers her assets under this threat.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 15: Coercion includes threatening to commit an act forbidden by the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Section 19: A contract is voidable if consent is obtained through coercion.

Conclusion
The wife can likely avoid this contract. The husband's threat to commit suicide constitutes
coercion under the Contract Act, 1872. Since the wife transferred her assets under this threat,
her consent was not freely given. Therefore, the contract (transfer of assets) would be voidable
at her option. She could seek to have the transaction set aside on the grounds of coercion.

a musical hall was agreeed to be let our on certain day but before that day the hall was
destroyed by fire is the promiser absloved from the contract ?

Analysis
1. Contract for Letting Out: A musical hall is agreed to be let out on a certain day.
2. Destruction of Hall: Before the agreed day, the hall is destroyed by fire.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract to do an act which becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is
made, and which the promisor could not prevent, becomes void.

Conclusion
The promisor (the owner of the musical hall) would likely be absolved from the contract. The
destruction of the hall by fire makes it impossible to fulfill the contract. According to Section 56
of the Contract Act, 1872, the contract would become void due to the impossibility of
performance. The promisor would not be liable for damages or breach of contract.
x as a dealer in fruits leaves a packet containing fruits at y s house by mistake y consumes
those fruits can x recover money ?

Analysis
1. Mistaken Delivery: X, a fruit dealer, mistakenly leaves a packet of fruits at Y's house.
2. Y's Consumption: Y consumes the fruits.

Legal Position
1. Quasi-Contract: The law implies a quasi-contract to prevent unjust enrichment.

Conclusion
X can likely recover the value of the fruits from Y. Since Y has consumed the fruits, they have
been unjustly enriched at X's expense. The law would imply a quasi-contractual obligation on Y
to pay for the fruits. X can seek compensation for the value of the fruits consumed by Y.

Sneha goes to a book stall and picks a book. When she goes to the counter to pay the price, the
shopkeeper declines to sell the book. She wants to sue the shopkeeper for breach. Decide.

Analysis
1. Sneha's Action: Sneha picks a book and goes to the counter to pay.
2. Shopkeeper's Refusal: The shopkeeper declines to sell the book.

Legal Position
1. Contract Formation: A contract is formed when there's an offer and acceptance.
2. Display of Goods: Displaying goods in a shop is an invitation to treat, not an offer.

Conclusion
Sneha would likely not succeed in suing the shopkeeper for breach of contract. By displaying
the book, the shopkeeper made an invitation to treat, and Sneha's act of picking the book was
an offer to buy. The shopkeeper has the right to accept or decline this offer. Since the
shopkeeper declined to sell, there was no acceptance, and hence, no contract was formed.
Sneha cannot claim breach of contract.

) Mamta invited her friends for birthday party at her residence. She spent Rs. 20,000 but.
Mamta's friends failed to attend ne birthday party. Mamta files a suit for breach of contract.
Advise Mamta.

Analysis
1. Social Invitation: Mamta invited friends to her birthday party.
2. No Contract: Social invitations typically don't create contractual obligations.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Intention to Create Legal Relations: For a contract to be valid, parties must intend to create
legal relations.

Conclusion
Mamta's suit for breach of contract would likely fail. Social invitations, like birthday parties, are
generally considered social arrangements rather than contractual agreements. There's no
indication that Mamta and her friends intended to create a legally binding contract. Without this
intention, there's no contractual obligation, and Mamta can't claim damages for breach of
contract.

) Akil contracts with Nikhil to kill Raj for a sum of Rs. 50,000. Nikhil kills Raj. Akil refuses to pay
the agreed sum. Can Nikhil recover the amount ?

Analysis
1. Contract for Unlawful Act: Akil contracts with Nikhil to commit a murder.
2. Nikhil's Action: Nikhil kills Raj.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: A contract with an unlawful object is void.

Conclusion
Nikhil cannot recover the amount. The contract between Akil and Nikhil is void due to its
unlawful object (murder). Since the contract is void, Nikhil has no legal recourse to claim the
payment. Additionally, Nikhil's actions would also attract criminal liability. The law would not
enforce or recognize such a contract.

Ranjit kidnaps Sujit's daughter and threatens to kill her if Sujit does not sign the document of
sale deed. Out of fear Sujit signs the sale deed. Later Sujit wants to set aside the Contract.
Decide.

Analysis
1. Coercion: Ranjit kidnaps Sujit's daughter and threatens to kill her unless Sujit signs the sale
deed.
2. Sujit's Action: Sujit signs the sale deed out of fear.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 15: Coercion includes committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Section 19: A contract is voidable if consent is obtained through coercion.
Conclusion
Sujit can set aside the contract. The contract was signed under coercion, as Ranjit's actions
(kidnapping and threat to kill) are forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Sujit's consent was not
freely given, making the contract voidable at his option. Sujit can seek to have the sale deed
declared void and set aside due to the coercion used by Ranjit.

Shiva's son was missing. He ordered his servant Ram to search the boy. Ram went to different
places to search the boy. Subsequently Shiva declared a reward of Rs. 25,000 to any one who
finds the missing boy. Ram is not aware of this reward. However he finds and returns the boy to
Shiva. Can Ram claim the reward ?

Analysis
1. Shiva's Declaration: Shiva declares a reward for finding his missing son.
2. Ram's Action: Ram finds and returns the boy without knowledge of the reward.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. General Offer: A general offer can be accepted by anyone who fulfills the condition,
regardless of knowledge of the offer.

Conclusion
Ram can likely claim the reward. According to the principles of general offers, the key factor is
whether the person has fulfilled the condition specified in the offer. Ram's actions in finding and
returning the boy fulfill the condition. Although Ram was unaware of the reward and acted out of
duty or other reasons, the courts might still allow Ram to claim the reward, as he has fulfilled the
condition specified by Shiva. However, the outcome could depend on specific circumstances
and judicial interpretations.

Mahantesh sold his horse worth rupees one lakh for Hs. 10,000 to Kantesh. Can this sale be
questioned ?

Analysis
1. Sale of Horse: Mahantesh sells his horse worth Rs. 1 lakh for Rs. 10,000 to Kantesh.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Free Consent: A contract is valid if consent is freely given.
3. Inadequacy of Consideration: Mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient to set aside a
contract, unless there's evidence of coercion, undue influence, or fraud.

Conclusion
The sale can be questioned if Mahantesh can prove that he did not give his free consent or if
there was coercion, undue influence, or fraud involved. If Mahantesh willingly sold the horse
knowing its value, the contract would be valid, despite the significant difference between the
horse's worth and the sale price. The law allows parties to make their own bargains, and courts
typically don't interfere with contracts based solely on inadequacy of consideration.

A, B and C enter into an agreement to a share among themselves of gains acquired or to be

Analysis
1. Agreement to Share Gains: A, B, and C agree to share gains acquired or to be acquired by
fraud.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: An agreement with an unlawful object or consideration is void.

Conclusion
The agreement between A, B, and C would be considered void. Since the agreement involves
sharing gains acquired or to be acquired by fraud, it has an unlawful object. According to
Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, such agreements are void and unenforceable. The law
would not recognize or give effect to this agreement.

Pand Qentered into an agreement where by P should pay Rs. 50,000 to Q if it rains on a
specified day, otherwise Q should pay Rs. 50,000 to P. It rains on that specified day. Can Q
recover the amount ?

Analysis
1. Wagering Agreement: P and Q enter into an agreement based on a future uncertain event
(rainfall).

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 30: Wagering agreements are void.

Conclusion
Q cannot recover the amount. The agreement between P and Q is a wagering agreement,
which is void under Section 30 of the Contract Act, 1872. Since the agreement is void, neither
party can enforce it or claim the amount. The law would not recognize or give effect to this
agreement.
Ganesh hires a marriage hall from Mahesh. The hall was accidently burnt before the marriage
took place. Ganesh files a suit against Mahesh. Decide

Analysis
1. Contract for Hiring: Ganesh hires a marriage hall from Mahesh.
2. Accidental Destruction: The hall is accidentally burnt before the marriage.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract to do an act which becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is
made, and which the promisor could not prevent, becomes void.

Conclusion
Ganesh's suit against Mahesh would likely fail. The accidental destruction of the hall makes it
impossible to fulfill the contract. According to Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, the contract
becomes void due to impossibility of performance. Mahesh would not be liable for damages or
breach of contract, as the destruction was beyond his control.

Praveen promised to marry Prema on the death of his father. While the father was still alive he
married Prema. Decide.

Analysis
1. Promise to Marry: Praveen promises to marry Prema after his father's death.
2. Marriage Before Promise Fulfillment: Praveen marries Prema while his father is still alive.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 11: A person must be of the age of majority and of sound mind to enter into a
contract.
3. Section 12: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at
the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment
as to its effect upon his interests.
4. Section 56: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.

Conclusion
The promise to marry Prema after his father's death would not be enforceable as a contract if
Praveen marries Prema before his father's death, as the condition (father's death) is no longer
relevant. However, the marriage itself between Praveen and Prema would be valid if both
parties are of sound mind and meet the legal requirements for marriage under applicable
personal law. The issue would be whether Praveen's prior promise affects the validity of the
marriage, but generally, the marriage would stand unless there's a specific legal impediment
under the applicable law.
 Ram's son was missing. His servant went in search of the boy. Subsequently Ram declared a
reward of Rs. 1,00,000 to anyone who finds his son. His servant though not aware of Marks: 10
Marks: 10 the reward finds his son. Can the servant claim the reward?

Analysis
1. Ram's Declaration: Ram declares a reward for finding his son.
2. Servant's Action: The servant finds Ram's son without knowledge of the reward.

Legal Position
1. General Rule: In cases of general offers, acceptance can be made by anyone who fulfills the
condition, regardless of knowledge of the offer.

Conclusion
The servant can claim the reward. Although the servant was unaware of the reward and acted
out of duty or other reasons, the servant has fulfilled the condition specified by Ram. The courts
might allow the servant to claim the reward, as the servant's actions align with the terms of the
offer. The key factor is the fulfillment of the condition, not the motivation behind the action.

Ajay sold his electric car worth Rs. 7,00,000 for Rs. 70,000 to Vijay. Can this sale be
questioned? Discuss.

Analysis
1. Sale of Electric Car: Ajay sells his electric car worth Rs. 7,00,000 for Rs. 70,000 to Vijay.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Free Consent: A contract is valid if consent is freely given.
3. Inadequacy of Consideration: Mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient to set aside a
contract, unless there's evidence of coercion, undue influence, or fraud.

Conclusion
The sale can be questioned if Ajay can prove that he did not give his free consent or if there
was coercion, undue influence, or fraud involved. If Ajay willingly sold the car knowing its value,
the contract would be valid, despite the significant difference between the car's worth and the
sale price. The law allows parties to make their own bargains, and courts typically don't interfere
with contracts based solely on inadequacy of consideration. However, Ajay might claim that the
sale was under undue influence, coercion, or that he was misled, which could potentially
invalidate the contract.

) Arun promises to obtain an employment for Anita in a school. Anita promises to pay ten lakhs
to Arun. Is this agreement valid?

Analysis
1. Agreement for Employment: Arun promises to obtain employment for Anita in a school.
2. Payment for Service: Anita promises to pay Arun for this service.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: An agreement with an unlawful object or consideration is void.
3. Public Policy: Agreements that contravene public policy are void.

Conclusion
The agreement might be considered void if obtaining employment through Arun's influence or
recommendation involves bribery, corruption, or other unlawful means. If Arun's role is merely to
provide a recommendation or assistance within legal bounds, the agreement could be valid.
However, if the agreement implies undue influence, bribery, or other illegal activities to secure
employment, it would be void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, for being against
public policy. The validity would depend on the specific nature and means of Arun's promised
actions.

) Shiva is a spiritual advisor. Shaila an old Hindu woman is a disciple of Shiva. Shiva advises
Shaila to gift away the whole of her property to him with a view to secure benefits to her soul in
the next world. Shaila makes gift of whole of her property to Shiva later Shaila wants to cancel
this gift. Advise Shaila.

Analysis
1. Undue Influence: Shiva, as a spiritual advisor, holds a position of influence over Shaila.
2. Gift of Property: Shaila gifts away her entire property to Shiva based on his advice.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 16: Undue influence occurs when a person in a dominant position influences another
person's decision, exploiting their position.
3. Section 19A: A contract entered into under undue influence is voidable at the option of the
party influenced.

Conclusion
Shaila can likely cancel the gift. Given Shiva's position as a spiritual advisor and Shaila's
disciple status, there's potential for undue influence. If Shaila can prove that she was influenced
by Shiva's dominant position and didn't exercise her free will, she can seek to have the gift set
aside under Section 19A of the Contract Act, 1872. Shaila should gather evidence to
demonstrate that Shiva's advice wasn't based on her free will and that she was unduly
influenced due to their relationship.

Sandeep agreed to let-out his Kala Bhavan to Jaideep for Rupees 10 lakhs for the marriage of
Jaideep's son. Before the date of marriage the Kala Bhavan was destroyed by fire. Jaideep
sues Sandeep for breach of contract. Decide.
Analysis
1. Contract for Letting Out: Sandeep agrees to let out his Kala Bhavan to Jaideep for a specific
event.
2. Destruction of Premises: The Kala Bhavan is destroyed by fire before the event.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract to do an act which becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is
made, and which the promisor could not prevent, becomes void.

Conclusion
Jaideep's suit for breach of contract would likely fail. The destruction of the Kala Bhavan by fire
makes it impossible to fulfill the contract. According to Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, the
contract becomes void due to impossibility of performance. Sandeep would not be liable for
damages or breach of contract, as the destruction was beyond his control.

'A' a customer, picks up an article in a departmental store and takes it to the cash counter. B, a
clerk at cash counter refuses to sell as it is only a sample, but not for sale. 'A' wants to institute a
suit against the owner of the store for breach of contract. Advise 'A'.

Analysis
1. A's Action: A takes the article to the cash counter to purchase it.
2. B's Refusal: B refuses to sell, stating it's a sample and not for sale.

Legal Position
1. Contract Formation: A contract is formed when there's an offer and acceptance.
2. Display of Goods: Displaying goods in a store is generally an invitation to treat, not an offer.

Conclusion
A would likely not succeed in suing the store owner for breach of contract. By displaying the
article, the store made an invitation to treat. A's act of taking the article to the cash counter is an
offer to buy. B's refusal to sell is a rejection of A's offer. Since there's no acceptance, no contract
is formed. The store owner isn't liable for breach of contract. A might have a potential claim if
the store's display or signage explicitly indicated the item was for sale, but based on the facts,
A's claim would likely fail.

Ramu invited his friends for dinner. His friends agreed to attend the dinner. Ramu and his wife
prepared the food by spending Rs. 10,000/-. But Ramu's friends failed to attend the dinner.
Ramu wants to institute a suit against his friend for breach of contract. Can he do so ?

Analysis
1. Social Invitation: Ramu invites friends for dinner, and they agree to attend.
2. No Contractual Obligation: Social invitations typically don't create contractual obligations.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Intention to Create Legal Relations: For a contract to be valid, parties must intend to create
legal relations.

Conclusion
Ramu cannot institute a suit for breach of contract. Social invitations, like dinner invitations, are
generally considered social arrangements rather than contractual agreements. There's no
indication that Ramu and his friends intended to create a legally binding contract. Without this
intention, there's no contractual obligation, and Ramu can't claim damages for breach of
contract. Ramu's friends' failure to attend might be considered a social faux pas, but it doesn't
give rise to legal liability.

'A' kidnaps B's son and threatens to kill B's son if 'B' does not sign a contract. Then 'B' signs.
There after 'B' wants to set a side the contract. Can he do so ?

Analysis
1. Coercion: A kidnaps B's son and threatens to kill him unless B signs a contract.
2. B's Action: B signs the contract under duress.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 15: Coercion includes committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Section 19: A contract is voidable if consent is obtained through coercion.

Conclusion
B can set aside the contract. The contract was signed under coercion, as A's actions
(kidnapping and threat to kill) are forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. B's consent was not
freely given, making the contract voidable at his option. B can seek to have the contract
declared void and set aside due to the coercion used by A.

'A' and 'B' entered into an agreement whereby 'A' should pay Rs. 1 0,OCJJ/-to 'B', if it rains on a
specified day, otherwise 'B' should pay Rs. 10,000/- to 'A'. It rains on that specified day. " 'Can
'B' recover the amount from 'A' in a court of law? M

Analysis
1. Wagering Agreement: A and B enter into an agreement based on a future uncertain event
(rainfall).
Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 30: Wagering agreements are void.

Conclusion
B cannot recover the amount from A in a court of law. The agreement between A and B is a
wagering agreement, which is void under Section 30 of the Contract Act, 1872. Since the
agreement is void, neither party can enforce it or claim the amount. The court would not
recognize or give effect to this agreement.

A' a c1ancer agreed lD darce ~ ttle !healer of 8 a' at-Are d--1~ Thereafter A· me1 Y,"1tl an
acooent ~ ~ beth cl her le(Js n ._. -1 tits 1 o that acodent Hence she 'ai1ed ao ~ ctaroe ITTYJf
dlT'WT"E in the theater °' B B ~ 00 a ~ ag.:1\0f,' ,, tor breach of contract ~

Analysis
1. Contract for Performance: A, a dancer, agrees to perform at B's theater.
2. Accident and Disability: A meets with an accident and breaks both legs, making performance
impossible.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract to do an act which becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is
made, and which the promisor could not prevent, becomes void.

Conclusion
B's suit for breach of contract against A would likely fail. The accident and A's resulting disability
make it impossible for A to perform. According to Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, the
contract becomes void due to impossibility of performance. A would not be liable for damages or
breach of contract, as the impossibility was beyond her control.

A' was a tenant n B s nouse B 'e1 1 ' pay Murtr r ,· t.a.1Ps ~' a ) annouoo~d auctiOn sa'e o' trte
t10tJ1,.1- 1 recover ta, es 'A patd ta.as to a'IOirl ··1e saM: Can A Mnrkr. G rP,COVcr tho amount
ff om 8 '

Analysis
1. Tenant's Payment: A, a tenant, pays taxes to save the house from auction sale.
2. Landlord's Liability: B, the landlord, had not paid taxes, leading to the auction notice.

Legal Position
1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Governs landlord-tenant relationships in India.
2. Section 69: A tenant who pays public charges (like taxes) to save the property can recover
the amount from the landlord.
Conclusion
A can recover the amount from B. According to Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
a tenant who pays public charges to save the property has a right to reimbursement from the
landlord. Since A paid the taxes to prevent the auction sale, A can claim reimbursement from B,
the landlord.

'X' contracts with 'Y' to pay 'Y' Rs. 1,00,000/- if he fails to supply the goods worth Rs. 20,000 to
'Y' on a particular day. 'X' fails to supply the goods on that day. Is 'Y' entitled to recover Rs.
1,00,000 from 'X' ?

Analysis
1. Contract for Supply: X contracts to supply goods worth Rs. 20,000 to Y on a particular day.
2. Penalty Clause: X agrees to pay Rs. 1,00,000 if he fails to supply the goods.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 74: Damages for breach of contract are limited to the actual loss suffered.

Conclusion
Y is not entitled to recover Rs. 1,00,000 from X. The amount specified (Rs. 1,00,000) appears to
be a penalty rather than genuine pre-estimated damages. According to Section 74 of the
Contract Act, 1872, Y can only claim reasonable compensation for the actual loss suffered due
to X's breach, not the full penalty amount. The court would determine the reasonable
compensation based on the actual loss, which might be related to the value of the goods (Rs.
20,000) rather than the excessive penalty amount.

'A' is B's medical advisor. He demands money of which 'B' declines to pay. 'A' then threatens to
make known the effect of B's communication to him as a patient. 'B' wants to institute a suit
against 'A'. Advise B

Analysis
1. Medical Advisor's Threat: A, a medical advisor, threatens to disclose B's confidential
information unless B pays him money.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 15: Coercion includes threatening to commit an act that is unlawful.
3. Professional Ethics: Medical professionals have a duty to maintain patient confidentiality.

Conclusion
B can institute a suit against A. A's threat to disclose confidential information constitutes
coercion under Section 15 of the Contract Act, 1872. Moreover, A's actions would be a breach
of professional ethics and potentially a criminal offense. B can seek relief from the court,
potentially obtaining an injunction to prevent A from disclosing the confidential information and
possibly claiming damages for any harm caused by A's threats. Additionally, B might also report
A to the relevant medical professional bodies for violating professional ethics.

'A' proposed to sell a radio to 'B' by letter received by 'B on 1st March 2021. 'B' posted his
acceptance letter on 2nd March 2021 which reached 'A' on 3rd March 2021 Meanwhile 'B'
revoked his acceptance by a letter posted on 3 d March 2021 which reached 'A' on 4h March
2021. Is 'B' bound to buy the radio ?

Analysis
1. Proposal and Acceptance: A proposes to sell a radio to B, and B accepts by posting a letter
on 2nd March 2021.
2. Revocation of Acceptance: B revokes his acceptance by posting a letter on 3rd March 2021.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 4: Communication of acceptance is complete when it comes into the possession of
the proposer.
3. Section 5: Revocation of acceptance can be made by notice in writing, but it must reach the
proposer before the acceptance is complete.

Conclusion
B is bound to buy the radio. According to Section 4 of the Contract Act, 1872, B's acceptance is
complete when A's receives the acceptance letter on 3rd March 2021. B's revocation letter
reaches A on 4th March 2021, which is after the acceptance is complete. Since the revocation
of acceptance did not reach A before the acceptance was complete, the contract is formed, and
B is bound to buy the radio.

Ganesh agreed to sell his T.V. worth rupees twenty thousand to Mahesh for two thousand
rupees. Late, Ganesh refuses to sell T.V. to Mahesh on the ground that price is too small. Can
he do so ?

Analysis
1. Agreement to Sell: Ganesh agrees to sell his TV worth Rs. 20,000 to Mahesh for Rs. 2,000.
2. Ganesh's Refusal: Ganesh refuses to sell, citing the price is too small.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 25: An agreement without consideration is void, but an agreement with consideration,
however inadequate, is valid.

Conclusion
Ganesh cannot refuse to sell the TV to Mahesh solely on the ground that the price is too small.
Since there is consideration (Rs. 2,000) for the agreement, it is a valid contract. Ganesh's
dissatisfaction with the price doesn't invalidate the contract. Unless Ganesh can prove that the
agreement was made under coercion, undue influence, or fraud, he is bound by the contract
and must sell the TV to Mahesh for the agreed price. The courts generally don't interfere with
contracts based on adequacy of consideration.

) Reshma agreed to work as house servant and to have immoral relation with Rajesh, for which
Rajesh agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month. Reshma kept up her promises, but Rajesh
refused to pay. Reshma institutes a suit against Rajesh to recover the promised amount.
Decide.

Analysis
1. Agreement with Immoral Object: Reshma agrees to work as a house servant and have
immoral relations with Rajesh in exchange for payment.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: An agreement with an unlawful object or consideration is void.

Conclusion
Reshma's suit would likely fail. The agreement between Reshma and Rajesh involves an
immoral object (immoral relations), making it unlawful under Section 23 of the Contract Act,
1872. Since the agreement is void due to its unlawful nature, Reshma cannot enforce it in a
court of law. The court would not recognize or give effect to this agreement, and Reshma would
not be entitled to recover the promised amount.

Mohan aged 16 years, agreed to sell his scooter to Gopal for Rs. 5,000/-, but later refused to
perform his promise. Gopal institutes a suit against Mohan. Will he succeed ?

Analysis
1. Minor's Agreement: Mohan, aged 16, agrees to sell his scooter to Gopal.
2. Mohan's Refusal: Mohan refuses to perform his promise.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 11: A minor is not competent to contract.

Conclusion
Gopal's suit would likely fail. As Mohan is a minor (under 18 years old), he is not competent to
enter into a contract. According to Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872, a minor's agreement is
void ab initio (void from the beginning). Mohan can repudiate the contract, and Gopal cannot
enforce it against him. The court would not compel Mohan to perform his promise, as the
agreement is not binding on him due to his minority.

Ramesh promised to marry Radhika after the death of his father. However, during the life time
of his father, Ramesh married Revati, another woman. Radhika institutes a suit against Ramesh
for breach of contract. Decide.

Analysis
1. Promise to Marry: Ramesh promises to marry Radhika after his father's death.
2. Ramesh's Marriage to Another: Ramesh marries Revati during his father's lifetime.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 26: Agreements in restraint of marriage are void.

Conclusion
Radhika's suit would likely fail. Ramesh's promise to marry Radhika after his father's death
implies a restraint on his freedom to marry during his father's lifetime. Such a promise could be
considered an agreement in restraint of marriage, which is void under Section 26 of the Contract
Act, 1872. Furthermore, Ramesh's subsequent marriage to Revati would not necessarily
constitute a breach of contract, as the original promise might be considered void. The court
would likely not enforce this promise, and Radhika's claim for breach of contract would not
succeed.

) 'A', a trader, leaves his bag containing fruits in the house of 'B' by mistake. 'B' eats those fruits.
'A' claims price of the fruits from 'B'. Decide.

Analysis
1. Mistake and Benefit: A leaves his bag of fruits in B's house by mistake, and B consumes the
fruits.

Legal Position
1. Law of Quasi-Contracts: Governs situations where one party is unjustly enriched at the
expense of another.

Conclusion
A can claim the price of the fruits from B. According to the law of quasi-contracts, B has been
unjustly enriched by consuming A's fruits without A's consent. B is bound to make restitution to
A for the value of the fruits consumed. A can recover the price of the fruits from B based on the
principle of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.
A" has selected one book which is displayed in a departmental store for the purpose of
purchase. But manager of the departmental store refused to sell the book. "A" has filed a suit
against the manager for the breach of contract . Decide.

Analysis
1. Display of Goods: A selects a book displayed in a departmental store.
2. Refusal to Sell: The manager refuses to sell the book.

Legal Position
1. Contract Formation: A contract is formed when there's an offer and acceptance.
2. Display of Goods: Displaying goods in a store is generally an invitation to treat, not an offer.

Conclusion
A's suit would likely fail. By displaying the book, the store made an invitation to treat. A's act of
selecting the book is an offer to buy. The manager's refusal to sell is a rejection of A's offer.
Since there's no acceptance, no contract is formed. The manager isn't liable for breach of
contract. A might have a potential claim if the store's display or signage explicitly indicated the
book was for sale and the refusal was discriminatory or otherwise unlawful, but based on
standard retail practices, A's claim would likely fail.

"A" has invited "B" f or a d inner . a nd "8" has accepted the invitati?n. Subsequently , ,, h fled a
suit "8" could not attend the dinner. 1 A as I · .. ,, h against B to recover the d c "A" recover t e
inner expenses. an dinner expenses 7

Analysis
1. Social Invitation: A invites B for dinner, and B accepts.
2. B's Absence: B fails to attend the dinner.

Legal Position
1. Social Agreements: Social invitations are generally not considered legally binding contracts.

Conclusion
A would likely not succeed in recovering dinner expenses from B. Social invitations, like dinner
invitations, are typically considered social arrangements rather than legally enforceable
contracts. Unless there's evidence of a clear intention to create a legally binding agreement
(e.g., a contractual agreement for a specific purpose), courts usually don't enforce such
agreements. A's claim for dinner expenses would likely be dismissed, as B's acceptance of the
invitation doesn't constitute a legally binding contract.

"A" and "B" entered an agreement before the marriage. In the agreement they agreed to live
separately after the marriage. Is it a valid agreement ?
Analysis
1. Agreement Before Marriage: A and B agree to live separately after marriage.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: An agreement that is opposed to public policy is void.

Conclusion
The agreement would likely be considered void. Agreements that promote separation or divorce
or are contrary to the normal expectations of marriage (e.g., living together) can be seen as
against public policy, which favors the institution of marriage and marital harmony. Indian courts
have held that agreements that undermine the marital relationship can be void under Section 23
of the Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, the agreement between A and B to live separately after
marriage would likely be deemed void as it goes against the principles of marriage and public
policy.

A" and "8" have entered an agreement. According to the agreement "A" must pay 5,000 Rs. to
"B" and "B" must settle the marriage between "A" and "C" a lady. Whether agreement is
enforceable ?

Analysis
1. Agreement for Marriage Arrangement: A agrees to pay B Rs. 5,000, and B agrees to arrange
A's marriage with C.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: An agreement that is opposed to public policy is void.
3. Special Marriage Act, 1954, and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Govern marriages in India,
emphasizing consent and freedom of choice.

Conclusion
The agreement would likely be considered void. Arranging a marriage without the consent of
both parties or treating marriage as a commercial transaction can be seen as opposed to public
policy, which emphasizes individual freedom and consent in marriage. Indian courts have held
that agreements interfering with personal freedom or promoting coercive or arranged marriages
without consent can be unenforceable. Therefore, the agreement between A and B would likely
be deemed void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, as it potentially undermines the
principles of free consent in marriage.

"A" agrees to pay 5,000 Rs. to "B" if B's house is destroyed. "B" has no house. Is it a valid
contract ?
Analysis
1. Agreement Contingent on Impossible Event: A agrees to pay B Rs. 5,000 if B's house is
destroyed, but B has no house.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 36: Agreements contingent on impossible events are void.

Conclusion
The agreement would be considered void. Since B has no house, the event (destruction of B's
house) is impossible, making the agreement contingent on an impossible event. According to
Section 36 of the Contract Act, 1872, such agreements are void. Therefore, A is not bound to
pay Rs. 5,000 to B.

"A" a famous singer agreed to sing in a programme arranged by "B". But before the programme
"A" died. Can "B" compel "C" the son of "A" to sing in the programme ?

Analysis
1. Personal Contract: A, a famous singer, agrees to sing in a program arranged by B.
2. A's Death: A dies before the program.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract to do an act that becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is
made is void.

Conclusion
B cannot compel C, A's son, to sing in the program. The contract between A and B is a personal
contract that requires A's unique skills (singing). With A's death, the contract becomes
impossible to perform, and it's void under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872. C, as A's son, is
not bound to perform A's obligations, as the contract is personal to A and doesn't automatically
transfer to his heirs or representatives.

"A- has supplied one 11 11 mobile the pnce of to "ff who is a minor. Can "A- recover the mobile
from "8~?

Analysis
1. Supply to Minor: A supplies a mobile phone to B, a minor.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 11: A minor is not competent to contract.
Conclusion
A can recover the mobile from B. Since B is a minor and not competent to enter into a contract,
the contract between A and B is void. A can reclaim the mobile phone as it was supplied under
a void contract. The law protects minors from contractual obligations, but it also allows the other
party to reclaim goods supplied under such void agreements.

A- a famous dancer has agreed by "8". But due to dance in a festival conducted against "A" to
illhealth "A., could not dance. "8'' fifed a suit for breach of contract. Decide.

Analysis
1. Contract to Dance: A, a famous dancer, agrees to dance in a festival conducted by B.
2. A's Illness: A becomes ill and cannot dance.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract to do an act that becomes impossible or unlawful is void.

Conclusion
B's suit would likely fail. A's illness makes it impossible for A to perform the contract. According
to Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, a contract that becomes impossible to perform is void.
A's illness is an unforeseen circumstance beyond A's control, and A is not liable for breach of
contract. The contract would be considered discharged due to impossibility of performance.

Nataraj posts his letter of proposal to sell his house to Lingaraj on 16~ March 18. Lingaraj
receives this letter of proposal on 18" March 18. On the same day, Lingaraj posts his letter of
acceptance. Thereafter Lingaraj sends a telegram revoking his acceptance on 19" March 18.
Nataraj receives Lingaraj's acceptance letter on 19:ti March 18 and telegram on 20°' March 18
Is there a contract between NataraJ and LingaraJ ?

Analysis
1. Proposal and Acceptance: Nataraj proposes to sell his house to Lingaraj, who accepts by
post.
2. Revocation of Acceptance: Lingaraj revokes his acceptance by telegram.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 4: Communication of acceptance is complete when it comes into the possession of
the proposer.
3. Section 5: Revocation of acceptance can be made by notice in writing, but it must reach the
proposer before the acceptance is complete.
Conclusion
There is a contract between Nataraj and Lingaraj. Lingaraj's acceptance is complete when
Nataraj receives the acceptance letter on 19th March. The revocation of acceptance by
telegram reaches Nataraj on 20th March, which is after the acceptance is complete. According
to Section 5 of the Contract Act, 1872, revocation of acceptance is not effective if it reaches the
proposer after the acceptance is complete. Therefore, the contract between Nataraj and
Lingaraj is formed, and Lingaraj's revocation is not valid.

Ganesh goes to a departmental store and picks an article with price tag. When he goes to the
cash counter to pay the price, the shopkeeper refuses to sell the article. Ganesh sues the
shopkeeper for breach of contract. Can he do so?

Analysis
1. Display of Goods: Ganesh picks an article with a price tag from a departmental store.
2. Refusal to Sell: The shopkeeper refuses to sell the article.

Legal Position
1. Contract Formation: A contract is formed when there's an offer and acceptance.
2. Display of Goods: Displaying goods with price tags is generally considered an invitation to
treat, not an offer.

Conclusion
Ganesh cannot sue the shopkeeper for breach of contract. By displaying the article with a price
tag, the store made an invitation to treat. Ganesh's act of picking the article and going to the
cash counter is an offer to buy. The shopkeeper's refusal to sell is a rejection of Ganesh's offer.
Since there's no acceptance, no contract is formed. The shopkeeper isn't liable for breach of
contract.

Amit promises to obtain for Amar an employment in the National School. Amar promises to pay
Rs. 5 lakhs to Amit. Is this agreement valid ?

Analysis
1. Agreement for Employment: Amit promises to obtain employment for Amar in the National
School in exchange for Rs. 5 lakhs.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 23: An agreement that is opposed to public policy is void.

Conclusion
The agreement would likely be considered void. Agreements that involve bribery, corruption, or
unfair influence in public or private employment are generally opposed to public policy. If Amit's
role is to improperly influence or secure employment through unauthorized means, the
agreement would be void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. However, if Amit's
promise is based on his legitimate professional services (e.g., resume preparation, interview
coaching), the agreement might be valid. The context and intent behind the agreement would
determine its validity.

A agrees to pay B one lakh rupees, if B will marry A's daughter C. C was dead at the time of the
agreement. 11111111111111111 lllllllll llll Marks : 6 Marks : 10 Marks: 10 Marks: 6 Decide.

Analysis
1. Agreement to Marry: A agrees to pay B Rs. 1 lakh if B marries A's daughter C.
2. C's Death: C was already dead at the time of the agreement.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: An agreement to do an impossible act is void.

Conclusion
The agreement is void. Since C was already dead at the time of the agreement, the act of
marrying C is impossible. According to Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, agreements to do
impossible acts are void. Therefore, A is not bound to pay Rs. 1 lakh to B.

A Kala Bhavan was agreed to be let out on a certain day. Before that day, it was destroyed by
fire. Discuss the consequences.

Analysis
1. Agreement to Let Out: A agrees to let out Kala Bhavan to B on a certain day.
2. Destruction by Fire: Before the agreed day, Kala Bhavan is destroyed by fire.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 56: A contract to do an act that becomes impossible or unlawful is void.

Conclusion
The agreement becomes void due to impossibility of performance. Since Kala Bhavan was
destroyed by fire before the agreed day, it's impossible for A to let it out to B. According to
Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, the contract is void, and A is discharged from his
obligations. Neither party can claim damages or performance. The agreement is considered
frustrated due to the unforeseen event of the fire.
Ajit agreed to deliver the goods to Avinash for certain price on 13-11-2018 without fail. Time is
essence of the contract. Ajit fails to deliver the goods on 13-11-2018. Avinash rescinds 4002
Marks: 10 Marks: 10 Marks: 6 the contract and files a suit to recover damages. Decide.

Analysis
1. Contract with Time as Essence: Ajit agrees to deliver goods to Avinash on 13-11-2018, with
time being the essence of the contract.
2. Breach of Contract: Ajit fails to deliver the goods on the specified date.

Legal Position
1. Contract Act, 1872: Governs contracts in India.
2. Section 55: When time is the essence of the contract, failure to perform on time allows the
other party to rescind the contract.

Conclusion
Avinash can rescind the contract and claim damages. Since time was the essence of the
contract, Ajit's failure to deliver the goods on 13-11-2018 constitutes a breach. Avinash is
entitled to rescind the contract and claim damages for the loss suffered due to Ajit's breach. The
court would likely uphold Avinash's right to rescind the contract and award damages,
considering the specific terms of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the breach.