UNIT -1

1)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?

Ans- Introduction-A contract is an agreement enforceable by law, and for a

contract to be valid, it must have lawful consideration and free consent.
In the given case, A sells a car worth ₹10,000 to B for ₹5,000. The question arises
whether such an agreement, where the consideration appears inadequate, can be
questioned under Indian Contract Law.

According to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, mere inadequacy of consideration does
not render a contract void. However, if consent was not freely given or was
obtained through fraud, coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation, the
agreement can be questioned.

Relevant Provisions of Law

1. Section 10 – Essentials of a Valid Contract
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act states:
“All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object…”
Thus, free consent and lawful consideration are two essential elements.

2. Section 14 – Free Consent

Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by:
Coercion
Undue Influence
Fraud
Misrepresentation
Mistake

3. Section 25 – Inadequacy of Consideration

Explanation 2 of Section 25 states:
“An agreement made without consideration is void, unless... the consideration is
not adequate but is lawful and the consent is free.”
Thus, mere inadequacy of consideration is not a ground to void a contract, unless
it raises a presumption of lack of free consent.

Explanation of the Given Case In this case:

A sells a car worth ₹10,000 for ₹5,000 to B.

There is lawful consideration (₹5,000).
If A gave his free consent, then the contract is valid.
If the consent was not free (due to pressure, fraud, or influence), the contract
can be challenged in court.
So, the key issue is not the price but whether A’s consent was obtained freely.
Grounds on which Agreement Can Be Questioned
Undue Influence (Sec. 16)
If B was in a position to dominate A’s will (e.g., B was A’s lawyer or doctor), and
took advantage of A’s mental or physical weakness, the contract can be set aside.
Fraud or Misrepresentation (Sec. 17 & 18)
If B falsely represented the car’s market value or concealed information, it may
amount to misrepresentation or fraud.
Coercion (Sec. 15)
If B threatened or forced A to sell the car at a lower price, it may constitute
coercion.
Mental Incapacity or Mistake
If A was unaware of the car’s true value due to mistake or incapacity, the contract
may be voidable.

Case Laws
1. Chidambaram Pillai v. Kulandai Ammal (AIR 1969 Mad 442)
Facts: Land was sold for a value significantly less than market price.
Held: Inadequacy of price alone does not make a contract invalid unless there is
evidence of undue influence or fraud.

2. Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (AIR 1924 PC 60)

Held: If there is gross inadequacy of consideration and the other party is in a
position to dominate the will of the seller, then the contract can be voidable.

3. K.S. Krishnaswamy v. K.S. Subrahmanyam (AIR 1959 Mad 475)

Held: A contract is not void for mere inadequacy unless it shocks the conscience or
suggests coercion or fraud.

4. Kedarnath v. Gorie Mohammad (1886 ILR 14 Cal 64)

Held: Adequacy of consideration is not necessary for a contract to be valid. As
long as some lawful consideration exists, the court will not go into fairness.

Conclusion
To conclude, in the given scenario, the sale of a car worth ₹10,000 for ₹5,000 is
not automatically void or voidable merely due to the low price. The agreement is
valid if:
There was free consent, and
There was some lawful consideration (₹5,000 in this case).
However, if A’s consent was obtained through fraud, coercion, undue influence, or
misrepresentation, then the contract can be questioned and set aside.
Thus, inadequacy of consideration is not a ground to question the agreement unless
it indicates lack of free consent.

2)A has given a proposal to B to sell his car for ₹1,00,000. B has accepted to
purchase the car on the occasion of his marriage. Is this a valid acceptance?
Explain with reasons and legal provisions?
Ans-Introduction-Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is formed when a
valid offer is met with a valid acceptance, resulting in an agreement enforceable
by law. Section 2(b) of the Act defines acceptance as:
“When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the
proposal is said to be accepted."
For acceptance to be valid, it must be:
Absolute and unqualified,
Communicated to the proposer,
In the mode prescribed or usual, and
Made within a reasonable time.

Explanation of the Problem:

A made an offer to B to sell his car for ₹1,00,000.
B accepted the offer, but said he would buy it on the occasion of his marriage.
This raises the question of whether B’s acceptance is absolute and unconditional,
or if it is conditional and hence not valid in the eyes of law.

Legal Analysis
🔹 Section 7(1) – Acceptance Must Be Absolute and Unqualified
“In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must be absolute and
unqualified.”
Here, B’s acceptance is conditional upon the happening of a future event – i.e.,
his marriage. It is not an unconditional acceptance, and hence does not result in a
concluded contract at this stage.
🔹 Conditional Acceptance ≠ Valid Acceptance
A conditional acceptance is not a valid acceptance. It is treated as a counter-
offer, which does not complete the contract until the original offeror (A) accepts
the new condition.

Case Laws
🔸 Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram (AIR 1971 SC 2295)
Held: An acceptance with a condition attached does not result in a concluded
contract unless the offeror agrees to that condition.

🔸 Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui (AIR 1972 SC 1242)

Facts: Government acceptance of a tender with modifications was held to be a
counter-proposal.
Held: No contract arises unless the counter-offer is accepted by the original
offeror.

Application to the Present Case In this case:

B has not accepted the offer immediately or unconditionally.

He has linked his acceptance to a future uncertain event (his marriage).
Therefore, his acceptance is not valid under Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act.
No binding contract is formed between A and B as of now.

Conclusion
To conclude, B’s acceptance is conditional and not absolute or unqualified, as
required by law. Hence, it does not constitute a valid acceptance, and no contract
exists at this point.
➡️ The acceptance is not valid in the eyes of law until B unconditionally agrees to
purchase the car as per A’s offer without linking it to any future event.

3)A has given an advertisement to pay ₹5,000 as a reward to anyone who finds his
absconded dog. After reading the advertisement, B searches and finds the dog. A
refuses to pay the reward claiming that B did not communicate acceptance. Can B
recover the reward?
Ans-Introduction-Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is formed when:
There is a lawful offer (proposal),
There is a valid acceptance,
It is made with lawful consideration, and
Both parties have the intention to create legal relations.
In the given case, A made a general offer to the public, and B, after becoming
aware of the offer, acted upon it by finding the dog.

Legal Principle: General Offer and Acceptance

🔹 General Offer
A general offer is made to the public at large and can be accepted by any person
who:
Has knowledge of the offer, and
Performs the required act.
Acceptance of a general offer does not need to be formally communicated. Performing
the act itself is valid acceptance.

Relevant Case Law

🔸 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Facts: The company advertised that it would pay £100 to anyone who used the smoke
ball and still caught influenza. Carlill used it as directed and got ill. The
company refused to pay, saying there was no communicated acceptance.
Held: The advertisement was a general offer.
Performance of the condition was sufficient acceptance.
Carlill was entitled to the reward.
🔹 This case is directly applicable to the given situation.

Application to the Present Case

A gave a general offer to the public to pay ₹5,000 to anyone who finds the dog.
B had knowledge of the advertisement and performed the required act of finding the
dog.
Therefore, B’s action constitutes valid acceptance.
Formal communication of acceptance was not necessary before performing the act.
Hence, A’s refusal to pay on the ground that B did not communicate acceptance is
not legally valid.

Conclusion
₹B is entitled to receive the reward amount of ₹5,000.
❌ A cannot deny payment merely on the ground of lack of prior communication of
acceptance, because:
This is a case of general offer, and
Performance of the act is sufficient acceptance.
Therefore, based on the Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. principle and the
provisions of the Indian Contract Act, B can successfully recover the reward from
A.

4)Anand says in a conversation to Ravi that he will give ₹25,000 to a person

whosoever marries his daughter. Ravi marries Anand’s daughter and files a suit to
recover ₹25,000. Will he succeed?
Ans= Introduction-Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract must have:
A lawful offer and acceptance,
Intention to create legal obligations,
Lawful consideration, and
Free consent of competent parties.
However, for an agreement to be enforceable, the intention to create a legal
relationship must be present. If the agreement is made without such intention, it
is not a contract under Section 10.

Legal Issues Involved

Was there a valid offer and acceptance?
Was there any intention to create legal obligations?
Can a vague or social statement form a contract?

Explanation
In this case, Anand made a casual statement in a conversation, saying he would give
₹25,000 to anyone who marries his daughter.
Ravi married his daughter and now claims the amount as if the statement was a
binding offer.
However, such statements made in social or domestic settings are not legally
enforceable, because there is no intention to create legal relations.

Relevant Case Law

🔸 Balfour v. Balfour (1919) 2 KB 571
Facts: Husband promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance. Later, he failed to do
so, and she sued.
Held: Agreements made in domestic settings are presumed not to be legally binding,
unless there is clear evidence of intent.

🔸 Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali (1914) 36 All 268

Facts: A person promised to donate money for a mosque. The court held that a mere
promise without legal intention or consideration is not enforceable.
🔸 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
This case is distinguishable because there was a clear general offer, deposited
money to show seriousness, and intention to form legal relations. But in Anand’s
case, there is no such formal public offer.

Application to the Present Case

Anand’s statement was not made as a formal, legal offer, but rather as a casual or
moral statement.
There was no written or communicated intention that this was a binding contractual
promise.
Hence, Ravi’s performance (marriage) does not make Anand legally liable to pay
₹25,000.

Conclusion
❌ Ravi will not succeed in the suit.
Because: Anand’s statement was vague, social, and lacked legal intent.
There was no valid offer, acceptance, or intention to form a contract.
As per contract law and relevant case laws, domestic and moral arrangements are not
enforceable in court.
Thus, no contract arose, and Ravi cannot recover ₹25,000 from Anand.

5) Sneha goes to a bookstall 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 of contract. Decide.
Ans- Introduction-To constitute a valid contract under the Indian Contract Act,
1872, there must be:
A lawful offer,
A lawful acceptance,
Lawful consideration, and
Intention to create legal obligations.
In this case, the core issue is whether Sneha picking the book amounts to a
contractual obligation on the part of the shopkeeper to sell the book, and whether
the shopkeeper’s refusal amounts to breach of contract.

Legal Issue
Does picking a book from a shelf constitute acceptance of an offer?
Can Sneha sue for breach of contract, even though the shopkeeper did not agree to
the sale?

Relevant Legal Concepts

🔹 Invitation to Offer (Invitation to Treat)
An invitation to offer is not an offer in itself but merely an invitation to others
to make an offer.

Example: Display of goods in a shop with price tags is not an offer, but only an
invitation to offer.

🔹 Offer and Acceptance

Under Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act:
An offer is when a person expresses willingness to do or not do something.
An acceptance must be in response to a valid offer.

Relevant Case Law

🔸 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
Facts: A customer picked goods from a self-service shelf and went to the counter.
Held: The display of goods is an invitation to offer, and the offer is made by the
customer at the payment counter. The seller may accept or reject this offer.

🔹 This case directly applies to Sneha’s situation.

🔸 Fisher v. Bell (1961)
Held: Displaying goods in a shop window is not an offer, but an invitation to
offer.

Application to Present Case

The shopkeeper only displayed the book, which is an invitation to offer.
Sneha, by taking the book to the counter, made an offer to buy it.
The shopkeeper is not legally bound to accept this offer.
Hence, no contract is formed until the shopkeeper accepts payment and agrees to
sell.
Since the shopkeeper declined the offer, no contract was created, and hence there
is no breach of contract.

Conclusion
❌ Sneha cannot sue the shopkeeper for breach of contract.
Because:Displaying the book was not an offer but merely an invitation to [Link]
contract was formed as there was no acceptance by the [Link], no legal
obligation arose between Sneha and the [Link], her claim will fail.

6) Mamta invites her friends to her birthday party at her residence and spends
₹20,000. Her friends fail to attend the party. Mamta files a suit for breach of
contract. Advise Mamta?.
Ans-Introduction-The Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs all contracts in India. A
contract is defined under Section 2(h) as:
"An agreement enforceable by law is a contract."
For a valid and enforceable contract, the following essentials must exist:
Offer and acceptance
Lawful consideration
Intention to create legal relationship
Free consent
Competent parties
Lawful object

In this case, the key issue is whether an invitation to a birthday party amounts to
a legally binding contract and whether the non-attendance of friends can be termed
a breach of contract.

Legal Issue
Does Mamta’s invitation and her friends' failure to attend create a contractual
obligation?
Can social agreements be enforced by courts?

Legal Principle: Intention to Create Legal Relationship

One of the most essential elements of a valid contract is the intention to create
legal obligations. Social, domestic, and family arrangements are generally not
enforceable in courts unless it is clearly proven that both parties intended to be
legally bound.

Relevant Case Laws

🔸 Balfour v. Balfour (1919) 2 KB 571
Facts: Husband promised to pay his wife a monthly amount. When he failed, she sued.
Held: This was a domestic arrangement and not enforceable as a legal contract.

🔸 Jones v. Padavatton (1969)

Held: Agreements between family or close acquaintances are presumed to be not
legally binding, unless proven otherwise.

🔸 Rose & Frank Co. v. J.R. Crompton & Bros Ltd. (1925)
Held: A contract requires clear intention to create legal relations. If parties
expressly or impliedly state that there is no legal intent, the agreement is not
enforceable.

Application to the Present Case

Mamta invited her friends to a birthday party, which is a social invitation.
Her friends did not attend, but there was no legal agreement or promise enforceable
by law.
There was no offer, no acceptance, and no legal intent.
The expenditure of ₹20,000 was done voluntarily by Mamta without a contractual
obligation from her friends.
Thus, no enforceable contract exists, and there is no breach.

Conclusion
❌ Mamta cannot succeed in a suit for breach of contract.
Because: A birthday invitation is a social arrangement, not a legal agreement.
There is no enforceable promise or intent to form a legal contract.
Courts do not enforce domestic or social obligations where legal intent is absent.
👉 Therefore, Mamta’s case will be dismissed, and she has no legal remedy under the
Indian Contract Act.

7)Shiva's son was missing. He ordered his servant Ram to search the boy. Ram went
to different place to search the boy. Subsequently, Shiva declared reward for
25,000 to anyone who finds the missing boy. Ram is not aware of this reward.
However, he finds and return the boy to Shiva. Can Ram claim the reward?
Ans- Introduction-In the realm of Indian Contract Law, the foundation of any
contract lies in the presence of a lawful offer and acceptance, accompanied by
consideration. One specific area of interest is the reward-based contracts, which
often arise in situations involving missing persons or lost property. A crucial
legal question in such cases is: Can a person claim a reward if he was unaware of
the offer at the time he performed the act? This is directly related to the
principle of communication of offer and intention to accept.

The present case involves a man named Ram who, while searching for Shiva’s missing
son under his master’s instruction and unaware of a reward declaration, later tries
to claim the reward upon finding the child. The enforceability of such a claim
involves the legal doctrines of knowledge of offer, intention to accept, and
voluntary performance.

🔹 Explanation-
✅ Essentials of a Valid Contract
Under Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is defined as:
"An agreement enforceable by law."

To make an enforceable contract, the following essentials must be present:

Offer (proposal)
Acceptance of offer
Knowledge of the offer at the time of acceptance
Intention to create legal relationship
Lawful consideration and object
Free consent
In the case of reward, the offer is general (open to the public). But for a person
to accept a general offer, he must have knowledge of it and act in response to it.

🔹 Application to the Case: Shiva, Ram, and the Reward

In the present scenario:
Shiva’s son was missing, and he ordered his servant Ram to go and search for the
boy.
Later, Shiva declared a reward of ₹25,000 to anyone who finds and returns the boy.
Ram was unaware of this reward but still found and returned the boy.
Now Ram wishes to claim the reward.

To determine if Ram is entitled to it, we must examine:

Whether Ram was aware of the offer.
Whether he acted in reliance upon that offer.
Since Ram was not aware of the reward at the time of his action, and he was already
acting under a duty imposed by his master, there is no consideration or intention
to accept the offer. Therefore, no contract arises between Shiva and Ram for the
reward.

🔹 Relevant Case Law

📌 1. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913)
Facts: The servant (Lalman Shukla) was sent by his master to search for a missing
nephew. After he had left, the master declared a reward. The servant found the boy,
but he was unaware of the reward.
Held: Since the servant did not know about the offer at the time of performing the
act, there was no acceptance, and hence no enforceable contract. He could not claim
the reward.
This is a landmark judgment establishing that knowledge of the offer is essential
to claim a reward.

📌 2. Fitch v. Snedaker (1868, U.S. Case)

Facts: A reward was offered for information leading to the arrest of a murderer.
The plaintiff gave the information but was unaware of the reward.
Held: The court ruled that one cannot accept an offer without knowing of its
existence. Thus, the reward claim failed.
This case reinforces the principle that offer must be known and acted upon
deliberately.

📌 3. Williams v. Carwardine (1833)

Facts: A woman gave information leading to a reward, although she was primarily
motivated by other reasons (not the reward), but she knew about the offer.
Held: Since she had knowledge of the offer, the reward was payable regardless of
her motivation.
This case clarifies that knowledge, not motive, is key.

🔹 Analysis of Ram's Position

Ram was acting under a legal obligation as a servant — not voluntarily.
Ram had no knowledge of the offer when he found the boy.
Therefore, there was no communication of offer and hence no acceptance.
Ram did not act in response to the reward and hence cannot claim it.

🔹 Conclusion
The scenario between Shiva and Ram squarely falls under the established legal
principle that a person cannot claim a reward if he was unaware of the offer at the
time of acting. Since Ram was performing his duty without knowledge of the declared
reward, no valid contract was formed between him and Shiva.
As held in Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, knowledge of the offer is essential for a
contract to arise in such situations. Thus, Ram cannot legally claim the ₹25,000
reward.

8) Mahantesh sold his house worth ₹1,00,000 for ₹10,000 to Kantesh. Can this sale
be questioned? Explain with legal provisions and case law.
Ans-Introduction-Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is valid if it is
made:
By competent parties,
With free consent,
For a lawful consideration, and
With intention to create legal obligations.
In this case, the issue is whether the gross inadequacy of consideration (i.e.,
selling a house worth ₹1,00,000 for ₹10,000) renders the contract void or voidable.

Relevant Legal Provisions

🔹 Section 10 – Essentials of a Valid Contract
“All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object...”

🔹 Section 25 Explanation 2 – Adequacy of Consideration

“An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void
merely because the consideration is inadequate.”
Thus, inadequate consideration alone does not void a contract, unless there is
evidence of lack of free consent due to:
Coercion,
Fraud,
Undue influence,
Misrepresentation.

Application to the Present Case

Mahantesh has sold his house worth ₹1,00,000 for just ₹10,000.
If this transaction was done with free consent, and without any coercion or undue
influence, the contract is valid, even though the price is low.
However, such a grossly inadequate price may raise suspicion of:
Undue influence (if Kantesh was in a position to dominate Mahantesh’s will), or
Fraud or misrepresentation.
If Mahantesh proves that he was forced, misled, or unfairly influenced, then the
sale can be questioned in court and declared voidable.

Relevant Case Laws

🔸 Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (AIR 1924 PC 60)
Held: If one party is in a position to dominate the will of the other, and the
contract is unconscionable (e.g., house sold for one-tenth its value), the
agreement can be questioned on grounds of undue influence.

🔸 Chidambaram Pillai v. Kulandai Ammal (AIR 1969 Mad 442)

Held: Mere inadequacy of consideration is not enough to set aside a contract unless
it is accompanied by evidence of undue influence, fraud, or coercion.

🔸 K.S. Krishnaswamy v. K.S. Subrahmanyam (AIR 1959 Mad 475)

Held: The price being grossly inadequate may be a circumstantial proof of undue
influence.

Conclusion
✅ If Mahantesh’s consent was free, and he willingly sold the house, then the sale
is valid, despite the low price.
❌ However, if there is evidence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence, then the
sale can be questioned and declared voidable.
👉 Thus, the sale can be questioned only if Mahantesh proves lack of free consent.
Inadequacy of price alone is not sufficient to invalidate the contract.

9) Ajay sold his electric car worth Rs. 700000 for Rs. 70000 to Vijay. Can its sale
be questioned? Discuss?
Ans-Introduction-A contract of sale is governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872
and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. A valid contract requires free consent, lawful
consideration, capacity of parties, and lawful object. One major issue that arises
is whether a contract can be set aside if the consideration is grossly inadequate,
i.e., when a valuable item is sold for a very low price.
In the given situation, Ajay sold his electric car worth ₹7,00,000 to Vijay for
₹70,000 — almost one-tenth of the market value. This raises the question of whether
the sale can be challenged in a court of law.

🔹 Explanation
✅ Essentials of a Valid Contract (Section 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872)
A contract is valid if:
There is free consent of the parties.
The consideration and object are lawful.
Parties are competent to contract.
The agreement is not declared void.

🟡 Section 25 – Consideration Need Not Be Adequate

The Indian Contract Act states:
“An agreement without consideration is void, unless... consideration is not
required to be adequate but must be lawful and real.”
This means mere inadequacy of price does not make the contract void unless it
points to:
Fraud
Coercion
Undue Influence
Misrepresentation
So, if Ajay willingly sold the car for ₹70,000 and gave free consent, then the
contract is valid, even if the price is low.

🔹 When Inadequacy of Consideration May Render Contract Voidable

Under Section 20 to 22 of the Indian Contract Act:
A contract may be voidable if mistake, fraud, or undue influence is proven.
Section 16 (Undue Influence): When one party dominates the will of another.
Section 19 (Voidable due to coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation): If consent is
not free.
So, if: Ajay was an elderly, ill, or financially desperate person,
Or if Vijay was in a position of dominance, such as legal advisor or caretaker,
...then the contract can be questioned.

🔹 Case Laws
📌 1. Adequacy of Consideration Case – Chidambara Iyer v. P.S. Renga Iyer (1969 AIR
198)
Held: Mere inadequacy of consideration is not ground to declare a contract invalid
unless it shows lack of free consent.

📌 2. Undue Influence – Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (1923)

If the contract is made under undue influence, especially where one party is in a
position to dominate, then the burden of proof lies on that party to show the
contract was made freely.

📌 3. Fraud or Misrepresentation – Derry v. Peek (1889)

Misrepresentation must be intentional to amount to fraud; if the buyer induced the
seller by false claims, the sale can be voidable.

📌 4. Inadequacy and Consent – A. Subramaniam v. P. Natarajan (2004)

If price is disproportionately low, the court may presume lack of free consent,
especially when accompanied by suspicious circumstances.

🔹 Application to the Present Case: Ajay and Vijay

✅ If Ajay freely agreed, was aware of the market value, and voluntarily accepted
₹70,000 — the sale is valid despite being unfair.
❌ If Vijay took undue advantage, or misled Ajay, or Ajay was incapable of
understanding the sale — then the contract may be voidable.
The court will look into:
Mental condition and financial status of Ajay.
Relationship and influence between Ajay and Vijay.
Reason for the low price.

🔹 Conclusion
A contract of sale at an inadequate price can be questioned, not just because of
the low price, but only if it results from fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or
undue influence. In Ajay’s case, unless it is proven that his consent was not free,
the contract will be considered valid and enforceable under the law.
Thus, while the sale appears suspicious due to the low price, its validity depends
on the presence or absence of free consent and circumstantial factors. If
challenged, the burden of proof lies with Ajay to prove that the sale was induced
by unfair means.

10) A proposed to sell a radio to B by a letter received on 1st March 2021. B

posted his acceptance letter on 2nd March 2021, which reached A on 3rd March 2021.
B later revoked his acceptance by a letter posted on 3rd March 2021, which reached
A on 4th March 2021. Is B bound to buy the radio? Explain.
Ans-Introduction-Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a valid contract requires a
lawful offer and a lawful acceptance. Once an offer is accepted, a binding contract
is formed. However, questions often arise regarding the timing of acceptance and
revocation, particularly when communicated by post.

Relevant Legal Provisions

🔹 Section 4 – Communication of Offer and Acceptance
Communication of acceptance is complete:
As against the proposer (A) – when it is posted by the acceptor (B).
As against the acceptor (B) – when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer (A).
🔹 Section 5 – Revocation of Acceptance
“An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the
acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards.”
This means B can revoke acceptance before it reaches A, i.e., before A comes to
know about it.

Application to the Present Case

1st March 2021 – B receives A’s offer.
2nd March 2021 – B posts the acceptance letter.
3rd March 2021 – Acceptance reaches A → Communication complete against B.
3rd March 2021 – B posts revocation letter.
4th March 2021 – Revocation reaches A (after acceptance reached).
➡️ According to Section 5, B cannot revoke his acceptance after it has reached A.
Therefore, the revocation is invalid, and B is bound by the acceptance that already
reached A on 3rd March 2021.

Relevant Case Law

🔸 Henthorn v. Fraser (1892)
Held: Acceptance is complete when posted. Revocation must reach the offeror before
the acceptance does.

🔸 Bhagwandas v. Girdharilal & Co. (AIR 1966 SC 543)

Held: The contract is complete when the acceptance is put into transmission.

Conclusion
✅ B is bound to buy the radio.
❌ His revocation of acceptance is not valid, as it reached A after the acceptance
had already been communicated.
Hence, a binding contract was formed on 3rd March 2021, and B is legally obligated
to complete the purchase.

11)Ganesh agreed to sell his TV worth Rs. 20,000 and Mahesh for Rs. 20,000. Later
Ganesh refused to sell TV to Mahesh on the grounds that price is too small. Can he
do so?
Ans-Introduction-A contract of sale is based on mutual agreement and free consent
between two competent parties. Once the terms of a contract, including the price,
are agreed upon with free consent, it becomes binding and enforceable by law under
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
---In this scenario, Ganesh agreed to sell his TV worth ₹20,000 to Mahesh for
₹20,000, but later refuses on the ground that the price is "too small." This raises
a legal question: Can a seller withdraw from a contract after accepting the agreed
price, claiming that it is too low?

🔹 Explanation
✅ Essentials of a Valid Contract (Section 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872)
A valid contract requires:
Offer and acceptance
Free consent
Lawful consideration
Competency of parties
Lawful object

📌 Lawful Consideration and Adequacy (Section 25, Indian Contract Act)

“An agreement without consideration is void, unless... consideration is lawful.
Adequacy of consideration is not essential, but it may be considered by the court
in determining whether consent was freely given.”

This means:
As long as the parties agree to a consideration that is real and lawful, the
contract is valid, even if the price seems low or unfair.
Ganesh and Mahesh agreed to a fair market price (₹20,000) — no inadequacy exists.
Once Ganesh accepted the offer and price, he is legally bound to fulfill the
contract.

📌 Revocation of Offer (Section 5, Indian Contract Act)

An offer can be revoked before acceptance
But once accepted, the contract is formed, and revocation is not allowed unless
permitted by contract terms.
In this case, both offer and acceptance are complete, and the price was agreed
upon.

🔹 Case Laws
📌 **1. Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali (1914)
Facts:** Promise to donate to a mosque was not enforceable as there was no
consideration.

Relevance: In this case, however, consideration (₹20,000) exists, so the contract

is valid.

📌 *2. Chidambara Iyer v. P.S. Renga Iyer (1969)

Held: Mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient to void a contract unless
consent is not free.

📌 *3. Kedar Nath v. Gauri Mohamed (1886)

Held: Once an offer is accepted and consideration is valid, the promisor is bound
by the contract.

🔹 Application to the Given Problem

Ganesh agreed to sell his TV worth ₹20,000 for ₹20,000.
This is a case of exact market value sale — not underpriced.
There is no inadequacy or lack of consent or misrepresentation.
Thus, Ganesh cannot revoke the agreement merely by saying the price is too low.

🔹 Conclusion
Ganesh's refusal to sell the TV to Mahesh after agreeing to the price is not valid
under Indian Contract Law. The agreed price is reasonable and reflects the market
value. There is no element of fraud, coercion, or undue influence, and both parties
gave their free consent. Therefore, a valid and enforceable contract exists, and
Ganesh cannot legally back out on the grounds that the price is too small.