Name of Case Area of law Ratio Dissent Discusse

d in
detail?
1. Balfour v Legal intention Husband and wife never intended to Yes
Balfour (Domestic relation) make a bargain which could be
enforced in law. A promise made
without any legal intention cannot be
enforced by law.
-Megha Shaw
2. Errington v Legal intention The father made a unilateral contract, Yes
Wood (Domestic relation) which could not be revoked once the
couple began performance. A
domestic agreement made with legal
intention is binding.

-Megha Shaw
3. Jones v Legal intention Domestic agreements, such as in Yes
Padavatton (Domestic relation) between a mother and daughter, are
presumed not to be legally binding
unless there is clear intention.
-Megha Shaw
4. Merritt v Merritt Legal intention The husband had to transfer the Yes
(Domestic relation) house to the wife because they were
no longer living together, therefore
they must have intended the
-Megha Shaw agreement to be binding.
5. Snelling v John Legal intention The agreement between the brothers Yes
Snelling Ltd (Business relation) in a family business was intended to
-Megha Shaw be legally binding.
6. Parker v Clark Legal intention Two couples were serious and the Yes
(Domestic relation) agreement was intended to be legally
binding because (1) the Parkers had
sold their own home, and (2) Mr
Clarke changed his will. Therefore
the Parkers were entitled to damage
 for the breach of contract.
-Megha Shaw
7. Simpkins v Pays Legal intention Presence of the outsider rebutted the Yes
(Domestic relation) presumption that it was a family
agreement and not intended to be
binding. The mutual arrangement
was a joint enterprise to which cash
was contributed in the expectation of
sharing any prize.
-Megha Shaw
8. Coward v Motor Legal intention A worker’s agreement to pay his Yes
Insurers' Bureau (Domestic relation) colleague a sum for transport to
workplace was deemed to be legally
binding. Neither party contemplated
that the one was legally bound to
carry, and the other to be carried, to
work, or intended to enter into legal
contract.
-Megha Shaw
9. Esso Petroleum Legal intention Held: 3:2 There was an intention to Yes
v (Business relation) create legal relations. The coins were
Commissioners offered in a commercial context
of customs and which raised a presumption that they
Excise did intend to be bound. However, the
coins were not exchanged for a
money consideration and therefore
the coins were not for resale.

-Megha Shaw
10. Rose and Frank Legal intention As the parties did not intend to be By Atkin- the Yes
Company v J.R. (Business relation) bound, there is no legally enforceable agreement not
Crompton and contract because of expressed clause form a legally
Brothers in the agreement of 1913 that the binding contract,
agreement is not meant for legal but held that the
binding. And the previous orders and
 agreements were of mutual consent responses
which cannot be enforced by law. between the
parties in the
process of
business
constituted
enforceable
contracts of sale.

-Megha Shaw
11. Baird Textile Legal intention If the terms of the agreement, are Yes
Holdings Ltd v (Business relation) kept flexible, to make it uncertain
Marks & then it is clear that there was no legal
Spencer intention to enter into contract.

-Megha Shaw
12. Carlill v The Offer and invitation The advertisement was an offer Yes
smoke ball to offer intended to be acted upon, and when
company accepted and conditions performed,
formed a binding promise on which
action will lie, assuming there is
consideration.

-Megha Shaw
13. Morris Offer and invitation The advertisement was an offer as it Yes
Lefkowitz v to offer was clear and left nothing open for
Great negotiation. And the performance of
Minneapolis only condition i.e. “first come, first
Surplus Store serve” makes it a valid acceptance of
Inc the offer.

-Megha Shaw
14. Ankit Sharma v Offer and invitation The complaint of the petitioner was Yes
Punjab to offer dismissed on the account that the
Technical candidate accepted the offer made by
University the university to take admission after
being selected in the first round of
counseling, by depositing the amount
and thus a contract was made which
had a legal intention to be bound by
the clause of prospectus. Hence the
deposited amount remains forfeited
because the candidate did not take
admission in any other university.

-Megha Shaw
15. Madhya Pradesh Offer and invitaion If there is a invitation to offer for imp
state transport v to offer voluntary resignment then the
Manoj Kumar resignment submitted constitute the
offer, and the same can be withdrawn
before the last date of the scheme of
voluntary resignment, because it is
not accepted before the validity
period of the scheme for resignation
expires. But the resignation cannot
be withdrawn after it is accepted,
even if the scheme is reopened to
accept resignation because these
schemes are funded schemes and
after the acceptance the fund is
created for the scheme on the basis
-Nihal Tandon of no. of application.
16. Paul Felthouse v Offer and invitaion Acceptance cannot be assumed if V imp
Bindley to offer there is no notification of acceptance,
or implied acceptance through action
present.
You cannot impose obligations on an
unwilling party.
 Silence does not amount to
-Nihal Tandon acceptance.

17. Butler Machine Acceptance Where there is a battle of the forms

Tool Co Ltd v whereby each party submits their
Ex-Cell- O own terms the last shot rule applies
Corporation whereby a contract is concluded on
(England) Ltd the terms submitted by the party who
is the last to communicate those
terms before performance of the
contract commences.

-Nihal Tandon
18. Bhagwandas v Acceptance 1)An agreement does not result from Justice V imp
Girdharilal&CO mere intent to accept the offer: Hidayatullah
Acceptance must be by some Stressing on
external manifestation (either by literary
speech, writing, conduct in further interpretation of
negotiations, or any other overt act) Indian Contract
accompanied by its communication Act and not be
to the offeror unless expressly moulded by
waived by him or impliedly by the English dicta,
course of negotiation to the contrary Hidayatuallah
held that when
acceptor put his
acceptance in
transmission (in
form of
telephonic
conversation) to
proposer as to be
out of his power
to recall
(According to
section 4 of the
Indian Contract
 Act 1872),
communication of
acceptance was
complete and
proposer was
bound by contract
so formed,
however quick
the transmission.

-Nihal Tandon
19. International Acceptance 1)Once the contract is concluded
FZE Limited, orally or in writing, the mere fact
Dubai v Vedanta that a formal contract has not been
Aluminium prepared by the parties does not
Limited affect either the acceptance of the
contract so entered into or
implementation thereof.
2)A contract is said to be concluded
when parties agree as to the
‘essential terms’ of the contract
though minor details can be left over
for them to decide later, albeit
subject to satisfaction of other
requirements as provided by S.10:
without such essential terms being
decided, contract cannot be enforced
by law as it is deemed to be
incomplete.

-Nihal Tandon
20. Holwell Conditional The postal rule does not apply in
Securities v Acceptance situations where a notification of
Thomas Hilaire acceptance has been specified.
Hughes
 -Nihal Tandon
21. Jawahar Lal Conditional Although Section 7 of the Contract
Burman v Union Acceptance Act demands that the acceptance
of India be absolute and unqualified, and not
conditional, the document

must be read as a whole. In that case,

the acceptance ‘subject to
making security deposit’ was treated
as a condition subsequent, one
that did not affect the making of the
contract.

-Nihal Tandon
22. Union of India Sec 7 The acceptance must be absolute and
and Others v unqualified, leaving no ground for
Messrs Bhim doubt or uncertainty. If the
Sen Walaiti acceptance is conditional, no valid
Ram contract is formed, and the offer can
be withdrawn at any moment till the
absolute acceptance has taken place
within reasonable time of such offer.

-Nihal Tandon
23. M/S Acceptance No concluded bargain had been
RickmersVerwal reached between the parties as the
tungGmb H vs terms of the standby letter of credit
The Indian Oil and performance guarantee were not
Corporation Ltd accepted by the respective parties.
In the absence of acceptance of the
standby letter of
credit and performance guarantee by
the parties, no enforceable agreement
could be said to have come into
existence.
 -Nihal Tandon
24. State of Conditional Circulars for payment of royalty to
Rajasthan v Acceptance check evasion or loss to the public
Deep Jyoti exchequer cannot be said to be
Company unreasonable or arbitary.

-Nihal Tandon
25. Bakshi Security Acceptance
and Personnel
services pvt ltd
v Devkishan
Computed pvt
ltd
-Nihal Tandon
26. Central Acceptance The issue of acceptance or rejection
Coalfields Ltd v of a bid or bidder should be looked at
SLL-SML with not only from the point of view of
PLR-RPL- the unsuccessful party but also from
SMASL v SLL- the point of view of the employer.
SML

-Nihal Tandon
27. Tata Cellular v Offer and invitation Deals with telecom spectrum
Union of India to offer sec2 tendering process. In this the tender
of Tata Cellular was rejected by the
UoI though they had fulfilled all the
criterion and awarded to a company
whose employee was a relative of the
Chairman of the tender committee
constituted by the UoI. The court
ruled that there was arbitrariness in
rejecting tatacellular’s tender and the
 tenderer must have been heard before
rejecting his/her tender according to
Article 14 of the constitution.
-Adya
Chaturvedi
28. M.R. Engineers implied terms The Supreme Court accepted the no yes,
v SomDutt proposition that even where a touched
Builders contract between two parties does upon
not contain a provision for
arbitration, an arbitration clause
contained in an independent
document will be incorporated into
the contract between the parties by
reference to an independent
document in the contract if the
reference is such to make the
arbitration clause in the independent
document a part of the contract.
However, based on the facts of the
case, it was held that there was no
incorporation of the arbitration
clause contained in the main contract
into the subcontract between
SomDatt and MR Engineers by
reference because: (i) the parties
never intended to incorporate the
same into the subcontract; and (ii)
the entire arbitration agreement
contained in the main contract was
tailor-made to meet the requirements
of the contract between PWD and
SomDatt, and was wholly
inappropriate and inapplicable in the
context of a dispute between
SomDatt and MR Engineers.
 -Megha Shaw
29. BP REFINERY Implied terms For a term to be implied, the Dissent by Lord Yess
(Westernport) following conditions (which may Wilberforce and
PTY LTD V overlap) must be satisfied: (1) it must Lord Morris-
THE SHIRE OF be reasonable and equitable; (2) it differed on the
HASTINGS must be necessary to give business application of
efficacy to the contract, so that no these principles to
term will be implied if the contract is the case at hand.
effective without it; (3) it must be so
obvious that ‘it goes without saying’;
(4) it must be capable of clear
expression; (5) it must not contradict
any express term of the contract.’

-Harishankar
30. Moorcock Implied terms In a business transaction, implied No dissent. Yes
terms are meant to fulfill the
intentions of both the parties, and to
bring about business efficacy; if
business could not be carried on
without the fulfillment of a certain
implied duty, the party which did not
perform that implied duty is liable.
-Harishankar
31. McArdle v Consideration An equitable assignment without No dissent. ???
McArdle consideration is a gift(it may still be
valid); an equitable assignment to be
enforceable must require no further
action on the assignor’s part.

-Harishankar
32. Nestle v. Consideration Same as the next case.
Chappel
-Harishankar
33. Nestle v. Consideration Consideration need not be strictly
 Chappel (House 'adequate'; a valid consideration may
of lords) consist of some right, benefit,
interest or profit accruing to the
promisor.If the promisee has value
for the consideration, it becomes
sufficient consideration.
When qualification(of purchase) is
the doing something of value to the
promisor, and the qulaification does
not suffice for just one sale, the
qualification shall held to be part of
the consideration of the sale.

-Harishankar
34. Lampleigh v Consideration If there was a past benefit that was No dissent. No
Braithwaite conferred by the beneficiary’s
request, any reward that the
beneficiary had promised would be
enforceable; that is, there would be a
valid assumpsit(assumption of
obligation).
-Harishankar
35. Dutton v Poole Consideration If a third party is a close family ??? ???
member of a party privy to the
contract, and derives some benefit
through that contract, they may sue
even though they’re not privy to the
-Harishankar contract.
36. L. E. Godfrey v Consideration Notwithstanding the morality of the No dissent. Yes
Parbati Paluni consideration, if the object of a
contract is to compensate for
past injuries/services, the contract is
valid, even if those services were
-Harishankar immoral in nature.
37. Samuel Pillai v Consideration Consideration that would support a No dissent. Yes
Ananthanatha simple contract will be considered
 Pillai sufficient consideration for a
promissory note.
-Harishankar
38. M. C. Chacko v Privity of contract If a trust is created by a contract, a No dissent. Yes
State Bank of beneficiary may enforce the rights
Travancore, given to him through that trust; a
Trivandrum charge, on the other hand, cannot be
enforced by a third party.
In order for a charge to be created,
there must be clear intention that a
specific immovable property would
be liable to satisfy a debt.

-Harishankar
39. Dunlop Privity of contract, One cannot act in the capacity of No dissent. Yes
Pneumatic Tyre principal agent both a principal and an agent in the
Co Ltd v relationship same contract;
Selfridge & Co For a principal-agent contract to be
Ltd realized, consideration must flow
indirectly or directly from the
principal when the agent is
contracting with any party.

-Harishankar
40. Hughes v Estoppel If a promise is implied, and one of No dissent. No
Metropolitan the parties relies on that promise, it is
Railway Co inequitable to allow the other party
to act as if the promise did not exist.

-Harishankar
41. Central London Estoppel If a party leads another to think that
Property Trust he would not enforce his legal rights,
Limited v High he would be prevented from doing so
Trees House Limited on a later date (concept of
promissory estoppel)
 -Harishankar
42. MotilalPadampit Estoppel, A person may waive his rights only No dissent. Yes
Sugar Mills v. State waiver of when he has full knowledge of that
of Uttar Pradesh rights right and has signified, either
&Ors. implicitly or directly, that he is
abandoning it; it is not necessary to
establish detriment on the behalf on
any party to sue for estoppel
When one party by his words or
conduct made to other a clear and
unequivocal promise intended to
create legal relationship,knowing or
intending that it would be acted upon
by the other party and it is in fact
acted upon by other party,the
promise would be binding on the
party making it and he would not be
entitled to go back upon it
irrespective of pre-existing legal
relationship or consideration. This
doctrine of promissory estoppel can
be used as cause of action,under
Indian laws.Also it is applicable to
state same as to a private individual.

-Harishankar
43. R. Leslie Ltd v Capacity of a A minor can only be asked to repay No Yes
SHEILL minor if the money is traceable i.e., has not
been used – “restitution stops where
repayment begins”- cause of action
was ex contractu, hence minor
cannot be forced to pay.
-Tasneem Zakir
Capacity of a Imp case- authority that contracts No Yes

44. MohoriBibee v. minor entered into by minors are Void ab

initio and not voidable as believed
 DharmodasGhose prior to this case – idea being that a
contract can be voidable only if there
existed a contract in the first place
which is not the case with infants as
majority is a condition of capacity to
contract (S.11) – no restitution s. 64
and 65 require the existence of a
contract in the first place, which is
not the case here.
-Tasneem Zakir
45. Proform Sports Capacity of a Under English law, contracts against No Yes –
Management Ltd v minor minors are voidable at the option of Rishabh
Proactive Sports the minor. It was reaffrimed in this and
Managment Ltd case that inducing someone to Anoushk
&Stretford. rescind a voidable contract does not a gave a
amount to breach. presentati
-Tasneem Zakir on.

46. Combe v.Combe Consideration, An unequivocal acceptance of No Yes

Promisory liability will be enforceable if it is Importan
Estoppel intended to be binding & acted upon t case
and was actually acted upon by other
party. An actual forbearance from
some act or exercising legal right is
not a good consideration unless it
proceeds from the request, express or
implied, from the promisor.
-Girija Bhosle
47. Charanjit Singh vs Mental A person who is unsound mind, i.e., No No
Chattranjan Pal Capacity incapable of making a rational
judgment as to the effects of a
contract upon himself, cannot
contract. His contracts would be
-Tasneem Zakir void.
48. Smt. Nilima Ghosh Mental U/s 12 of ICA, unsoundness of mind No Yes
vs Harjeet Kaur Capacity would vitiate the capacity of a party
 &Ors to enter into a contract only if the
party was of unsound mind, (i.e.,
incapable of forming a rational
judgment as to the effects of the
contract upon himself/herself) AT
THE TIME OF THE MAKING OF
THE CONTRACT – proving general
unsoundness is insufficient.

-Tasneem Zakir
49. S. Basavaraj and Mental Alcohol intoxication is accepted as a No Yes
Others v V. Capacity defense under the rarest of rare cases
N.Adilakshmamma because a person cannot be allowed
to benefit from his own wrong – a
principle well established in
jurisprudence. Having said that, the
intoxication has to be AT THE
TIME OF THE MAKING OF THE
CONTRACT and also has to be
SPECIFICALLY PROVEN. A
general plea of being an alcoholic
addict is insufficient.

-Tasneem Zakir
50. Imperial Loan Co Mental ENGLISH LAW: Mental incapacity No Yes
Ltd v Stone Capacity is not a valid ground to avoid a
contract unless it is proven that the
other party was aware of the
unsoundness at the time of the
making of the contract. Heirs of the
insane party can use the defence of
insanity of ancestors to avoid the
-Tasneem Zakir contract.
51. The Chief Engineer Coercion Coercion is a question of fact which No No
(H) General And ... depends on the circumstances of
vs Sai Suraj each case, a mere probability is
 Construction Pvt. insufficient to support a plea of
Ltd coercion.

-Tasneem Zakir
52. Bansraj Das v Coercion Agreement entered into under the No Yes
Secretary of State compulsion of law can amount to
coercion, when the party being
coerced is not an offender. (In this
case, the plaintiff was the joint owner
of a property where in his coparcener
was an offender, and to release the
property a fine was paid.)
-Tasneem Zakir
53. P. Rengaswami Coercion Erroneous belief that you are legally No Short
Pillai and Others v entitled to exact payment and suing case
Srirangam for not paying does not amount to touched
Municipal Council, coercion upon
Represented By The
Commissioner,
Srirangam
Municipality,
Srirangam
- VarunaviBangia
54. Sita Devi (Deceased) Undue How does undue influence work?1. No Yes
Through Lr vs Prithi influence and Prove relationship by person alleging
Chand Misrepresentat domination of will
ion 2. Use the relationship to get an
unfair advantage
3. Burden of proof shifts to the
defendant to prove that no undue
influence exists
- VarunaviBangia
55. Lingo Bhimrao Naik Undue Well-meaning advices versus threats. Yes Yes
v Dattatraya Shripad influence Threats are not sufficient to (A lot of
Jamadagni constitute coercion or undue time has
influence. Whatever is being been
 contended must be spelt out in the spent by
plaint clearly. the judge
in
explainin
g
- VarunaviBangia jurisdicti
onal
issue
which is
not to be
given
any
importan
ce to)
56. Subhas Chandra Undue Unless clearly pleaded by parties, No Yes.
DasMushib v Ganga influence courts cannot presume Importan
Prosad Das Mushib unconscionability. Dependence on a t case
person or closeness in relation
releases no presumption of
- VarunaviBangia domination of will.
57. Ladli Prasad Jaiswal Undue How undue influence works. 1. No Yes.
v Karnal Distillery influence Prove relationship by person alleging Importan
Company Limited domination of will. OPP t case
2. Use the relationship to get an
unfair advantage OPP
3.Burden of proof shifts to the
defendant to prove that no undue
- VarunaviBangia influence exists OPD
58. Parbhu v Puttu Fraud and Mere illiteracy doesn’t raise No No
Undue presumption of undue influence
influence unless there is evidence that the party
seeking to avoid the contract is
unaware what he was bargaining for.
- VarunaviBangia
59. Dai-Ichi Karkaria Economic Difference between economic duress No Yes
Private Ltd., ... vs Duress and commercial pressure. No choice
 Oil & Natural Gas left and no position to negotiate.
Commission Other party exploits this ‘substantive
inequality’ .
Severability of unfair terms from fair
terms is possible and must be done.

- VarunaviBangia
60. Laidlaw v Organ Fraud Principle of caveat emptor must exist Yes Short
in commercial contracts. It is a case,
rebuttal but strong presumption that touched
there is no duty to disclose in upon
- VarunaviBangia business transactions.
61. William Derry, J.C. Fraud and Knowledge of falsity and intention to No Yes.
Wakefield, M.M. Misrepresentat deceive important. A deliberate act is Importan
Moore, J. Pethick ion fraud. Motive to commit fraud t case
and S.J. Wilde v Sir immaterial Difference between
Henry William Peek, elements of fraud and evidences to
Baronet prove it. ‘Reasonable grounds to
believe it’ test for evidence not an
element. “You don’t need to know
for sure that it is false so long as it is
made with the intent to give out false
information for it to constitute
fraud”.

- VarunaviBangia
62. David Birkett v Illegality and Rule of in pari delicto. Photocopy No but judges Touched
Acorn Business Fraud case used different upon
Machines Ltd reasons to come
to the same
conclusion

- VarunaviBangia
63. Esso Petroleum co Misrepresentat Concept of collateral warranty. No Yes.
ltd v Mardon ion Forecast made even by experts Importan
cannot prima facie be taken to t case
 guarantee a result unless specified so
explicitly. There was negligent
misrepresentation for which damages
- VarunaviBangia are payable.
64. R.C. Thakkar vs Fraud Lump sum contracts are different No Yes.
(The Bombay from rate contracts. Exception to §19 Importan
Housing Board By deals with fraud by silence when t case
Its ... there’s a duty to disclose ONLY.
Elements of fraud:
1. Suggestion of fact
2. Suggestion to be true
believing it to not be true
3. Intention to induce
Motive to deceive immaterial
- VarunaviBangia
65. With v O'Flanagan Fraud Current contract was not No Touched
uberrimaefidei but there is duty to upon
- VarunaviBangia disclose a change in circumstances.
66. Hedley Byrne & Co Misrepresentat Exemption clause valid unless it is No Yes.
Ltd v Heller & ion challenged as an unconscionable Importan
Partners Ltd bargain. In business transactions, t case
there’s a presumption of equality of
bargaining power. There is a
difference between negligence of
acts and due to reliance on words.
Duty of care can exist in addition to
duty of honesty in absence of a
contractual duty or fiduciary duty.
- VarunaviBangia
67. Smith v Hughes Unilateral Mistake of quality of product is not No Yes.
mistake mistake of subject matter to render Importan
contract void. Onus on defendant is t case
to show that plaintiff is believed that
the defendant was under the
impression that he had contracted the
sale of old oats and not merely that
 the plaintiff believed that the
defendant to be under the impression
that he’s buying old oats. Rule of
- VarunaviBangia caveat emptor upheld.
68. Bell v Lever Mistake (Sec For the contract to be void by imp
Brothers Ltd 20) common mistake the mistake must
involve the actual subject-matter of
the agreement and must be of such a
"fundamental character as to
constitute an underlying assumption
without which the parties would not
have entered into the agreements".

- DiyashaBasak
69. Saunders v. Anglia Non est factum When a man of full age and No Yes
Building Society understanding, who can read and
write, signs a legal document not
taking trouble to read it but signs it
as it is relying on another as to its
character or contents or effect, he
cannot take defense that it is not his
deed. If the signature is taken by
fraud, misrepresentation or undue
influence, document is void to that
extent. But document is not void if
other third party has innocently
relied on or acted upon such
document. Signer must be legally
negligent to deprive him of taking
-Girija Bhosle this defense.
70. Gallie v Lee Non est factum Same ratio as above applicable. imp
-Girija Bhosle
71. Chwee Kin Keong v. Unilateral 1) The element of consensus ad imp
Digilandmall.com mistake (Sec idem cannot be claimed by
Pte Ltd 20) the party (who is aware of
such mistake) against the
 other party (who has
committed such a mistake).
2) The appellants had
constructive knowledge about
the mistake in the pricing of
the product. Due to this
mistake related to the
fundamental terms of the
contract, the contract was
held void under the common
law.
- DiyashaBasak
72. Shogun Finance Ltd. Mistake as to 1. In case of written agreements, Vvv imp
vs Hudson identity identity of the parties
contracting is of material
importance.
2. In case of face-to-face
communications, there is a
strong presumption that each
intended to deal with the
person present in front of
them. Thus, in case of a
mistake, the contract is
voidable.
3. However, if the parties are
communicating through
correspondence, one party is
not sure about the identity of
the other party. Thus, the
contract is void.
4. However, if a party’s mistake
doesn’t go to the identity of
the other party, i.e. if it is
mistaken only about the
attributes and not identity per
se, then contract is valid and
 subsisting.
-Aadya Chaturvedi
73. Tarsem Singh v Mistake (Sec The court held that the parties were V imp
Sukhminer Singh 20) not ad idem; therefore it is submitted
that this case should be seen as an
instance of negating of consent by a
‘mutual mistake’, under Sec.13,
rather than an instance of
nullification of consent through
‘common mistake’ of fact under
- DiyashaBasak S.20.
74. Nutan Kumar And Lawful objects Unless the statute specifically imp
Ors vs Iind and provides that a contract contrary to
Additional District consideration the provisions of the statute would be
Judge (Sec 23) void the contract would remain
binding between the parties and
could be enforced between the
parties themselves.
- DiyashaBasak
75. Taylor v Chester Lawful objects Maxim “in pari delicto imp
and potiorestconditiopossidentis” applies;
consideration and that as plaintiff could not recover
(Sec 23) without showing the true character of
the deposit and that being on an
illegal consideration of which he
himself was a party, he could not
- DiyashaBasak recover anything.
76. Lachoo Mal v Lawful objects Everyone has a right to waive the imp
RadheyShyam and advantage of a law, made for his
consideration benefit in his private capacity, when
(Sec 23) a public right or public policy is not
- DiyashaBasak infringed thereby.
77. Gujarat Bottling Contracts in Doctrine of ‘Restraint of Trade’ is No Yes
Co.Ltd.and Others Restraint of inapplicable to cases where
versus Coca Cola Trade restriction is to operate during the
 Co. and Others period contract is subsisting or
restriction is imposed for the purpose
of promoting trade.
Reasonableness of restrain is outside
the scrutiny of Indian courts.

-Girija Bhosle
78. Percept D Mark v Agreements in 1) A restrictive covenant imp
Zaheer Khan restraint of extending beyond the term of
trade void (Sec the contract is void and not
27) enforceable.
2) The restraint of trade
principle is not confined to
contracts of employment
only, but is also applicable to
all other contracts with
respect to obligations after
the contractual relationship is
- DiyashaBasak terminated.
79. Manohar Singh And Agreements in A clause which provides for
Sons v Raksha restraint of forfeiture or waiver of a right if no
Karamchari Coop. legal action is commenced within the
GR. H. SOC and proceedings period stipulated by the agreement is
other (Sec 28) valid under section 28 of Indian
Contract Act.

- DiyashaBasak
80. National Insurance Agreements in An agreement which curtails the
Company Limited v restraint of period of limitation and prescribes a
Sujir Ganesh Nayak legal shorter period than prescribed by law
and Company proceedings would be void as offending Section
and Anr (Sec 28) 28 of the Contract Act.
- DiyashaBasak
81. Gherulalparakhv. Sec 30 Partnership agreement formed with Vv imp
MahadeodasMaiya the object of entering into wagering
transactionsis enforceable, valid and
 subsisting for its object of wagering
isn’t unlawful under section 23 of
ICA.
-Megha Shaw
82. SundaraGownder v. § 23 i. When a contract is entered into
Balachandran between parties to circumvent any
statutory provision it is not a case of
contract "becoming" or of being
"discovered to be" void as the parties
should know that the contract was
void from its inception (ignorance of
law is no excuse).
ii. §65 has no application in where
the contract is void from the
inception and the plaintiff was aware
of it.
-Gursimar Singh
83. TeegulaBabiah v § 23 Not all contracts that contravene a
Mohammad statute are void for the reason of such
AbdusSubhan Khan contravention. If the object of the
legislature while making such a law
was to safeguard public order or
safety or the protection of the
persons dealing with those on whom
the condition is imposed. However if
no specific penalty is attached to the
transaction and such a condition is
only for administrative purposes,
then a contract in contravention of it
is valid.
-Gursimar Singh
84. HPA International v Contingent When an agreement requires
Bhagwandas Fateh Contracts ratification by a third party which is
Chand Daswani and not party to the contract, such a
Others contract is not concluded and
such ratification is held to be
 condition precedent for a concluded
contract to come into force.

-Aadya Chaturvedi
85. Gian Chand v Contingent Contingent contracts to do or not to
Gopala and Others Contract do anything if an uncertain future
event does not happen,can be
enforced when the happening of that
event becomes impossible, and not
before.
-Gursimar Singh
86. DeokabaiSmt v Contingent Condition of finding an
Uttam Contract accommodation (and return of
earnest money on failure in the
search of accommodation) prior to
the sale of the house was held to be a
contingent agreement.
-Gursimar Singh
87. Peter v State of §30 Agreements of gambling nature
Kerala would be governed by the §30 of the
ICA and such an agreement would
be void and there will be no contract
between the parties.

-Gursimar Singh
88. Subhash Kumar §30 I. Agreements of gambling nature
Manwani vs State of would be governed by the §30 of
M.P. and others the ICA and such an agreement
would be void and there will be
no contract between the parties.
Such agreements cannot be
enforced.
Central nor state acts like Lotteries
Reg Act do not render lottery
agreements being enforceable.
 -Gursimar Singh
89. Startup v McDonald Performance The promisee must have a C.J. points out Yes
S.38 reasonable opportunity of thereought to be
ascertaining that the thing offered by reasonable time
the promisor is the thing which latter as well as
is bound to deliver. (S. 38-2). opportunity.
Though the time of delivery was Absence of all
unreasonable due to lateness of the workers from the
usual business hours, yet there was warehouse or any
full and sufficient time for M to other reason
weigh, examine and receive into their thereof due to the
possession the delivered oil before lateness of the
midnight. hour could be
Since in the present case M was pleaded as the
present in the warehouse and was in factor negating
a position to reasonably ascertain the the tender for it
quality and quantity of the product will not provide
delivered, hence, there was a valid reasonable
tender even when made at opportunity to
unreasonable time for it was made examine the
within the time stipulated under the product.
contract and thus rendered the literal
possibility of performance with the
latter of contract.
-Megha Shaw
90. Ismail Bhai Rahim Tender/§38 I. Tender rules under English law
and Others v Adam should not be considered while
Osman and Others interpreting §38.
II. Same conditions of the offer of
performance apply in cases of offer
to the executor (If the executor has
not been appointed and the promisor
is taking a risk in offering
performance, then also the same
conditions apply) as the conditions
that would apply in case of offer of
 performance to the promisee.
III. A tender of money in payment
must be made with an actual
production of the
money.

-Gursimar Singh
91. P. L. S A. R. S. Tender/§38 §38(3) does not place a very heavy
ArunachallamChetti burden on the seller as it only
ar v Krishna Ayyar requires that the promise must have
and Others reasonable opportunity of seeing that
the thing offered is the thing that the
promise has contracted for and the
promisor is bound to deliver. It is the
promises duty to take steps
necessary to satisfy himself.
Promisor has only to give him an
opportunity

-Gursimar Singh
92. Bolton vs Mahadeva Doctrine of Substantial Performance cannot be V imp
Substantial pleaded in case of lump sum contract
Performance where full performance is needed
-Jyotishka Guha
93. Khardah Co vs Assignment (a) By the conduct of the parties in imp
Raymon& Co Contract the sell, it is clear that they did not
intend to assign
(b) The agreement was not hit by Oct
29,1953 order because it was a non
transferable delivery of goods and
this type was exempted in the order
-Jyotishka Guha
94. Cutter vs Powell Substantial It was a lump sum contract where imp
Performance relief would only be given by full
performance. Thus substantial
 performance cannot be pleaded as
the sailor failed to complete the
-Jyotishka Guha voyage due to his untimely death
95. K.S. Vidyanadam vs Effect of a) Where time is not the essence
Vairavan failure to of the contract, it has to be
perform where performed within reasonable
time is not the time period
essence of the b) Promisor is not bound to
contract(Sec perform his promise unless
55b) the promise shows his
Performance willingness tto perform his
of Reciprocal part in case of Reciprocal
Proomise(Sec promise
51) It is well established law that in case
of immovable property, it is
presumed that time is not of the
essence of the contract. However, the
courts may in such circumstances
infer that it has to performed within a
reasonable time if the conditions are
evident from i. the terms of the
agreement ii. From the nature of the
property iii. From the currounding
circumstances like the object of
making the contract.
-Jyotishka Guha
96. Guna Krishna Gauns Performance I. As per §34 of the Specific relief In short
and Another v act, it has become well settled law
Antonio Joao that where the defendant is in
Braganza @ Antush possession of the some of the suit
Braganza and Others properties and the plaintiff in his suit
does not seek possession of those
properties but merely claims a
declaration that he is the owner of
the suit properties, the suit is not
maintainable.
 II. Calling upon the plaintiffs to
come and collect and cash the
cheque, would not amount to tender
or offer of payment of the amount
due to the plaintiffs.
-Gursimar Singh
97. Jagannath Patnaik v Performance I. The principles of master/servant or
Sri employer/employee and not
PitambarBhupatiHar principal/agent will govern the
ichandanMohapatra relation of the Diwan and Zamindar.
II. In case of a contract of personal
services, the contract ends with the
death of one of the parties. A
contract is of personal nature when
the relationship between the parties
-Gursimar Singh is an intimate one.
98. I. K. Sohan Singh v Performance If there is a covenant to pay the imp
State Bank of India money and to indemnify, and then
the parties have attempted to qualify
that covenant by using words the
effect of which, if effect is to be
given to them, would be to destroy
the personal liability. That being so,
the words they have used can have
no effect at law and the liability
-Gursimar Singh remains.
99. Mukanchand Time & Place When a promise has to be performed
RajaramBalia vs for on a certain day & the promisor has
NihalchandGurmikh performance(S undertaken to perform it without the
rai ec 47) application by the promisee, & the
promisor failed to perform it within
the reasonable time i.e. the usual
hours of business, then he cannot
plead for substantial performance

-Jyotishka Guha
100. Mohammed vs Performance Promisor is not bound to perform the
Pushpalatha of Reciprocal reciprocal promise unless the
Promise(Sec promise is ready and willing to
51) perform his part. A promise for a
promise is a reciprocal promise
-Jyotishka Guha
101. SaradamaniKandapp Effect of a) Time is the essence of the
an& Others vs S. failure to contract which is related to
Rajalakshmi& perform at a sale or transfer of immovable
another fixed time property.
where time is b) When a party to a contract
the essence of fails do a certain thing within
the the fixed time where Time is
contract(Sec the essence of the contract,,
55) then the contract becomes
void at the option of the
aggrieved party

-Jyotishka Guha
102. BenodeBehari Das Performance The promisor is bound to perform his
vs Benoy Bhushan of Reciprocal promise i.e. executing the sale deed
Chowdhury Promise(Sec as soon as the promise shows his
51) willingness to perform his part i.e.
paying Rs 400 within 5 years
-Jyotishka Guha
103. Food Corporation of Performance Where Time is not the essence of the
India vs Anupama of Promise contract, it has to be performed
Warehousing where Time is within reasonable time period which
Establishment not the essence is a question of Fact
of the Contract
(Sec 46)
-Jyotishka Guha
104. NevilalRohilal Effect of Contract regarding public work such
Construction vs Failure to as construction of road are contracts
State of Bihar perform at a where Time is essential & failure
fixed time will make it voidable
 where time is
the essence of
-Jyotishka Guha the
contract(Sec
55)
105. MugneeramBangur Doctrine of Doctrine of Frustration cannot be V imp
& Co vs Sardar Frustration(Sec pleaded when
Gurbachan Singh 56) a) Time is not the essence of the
contract
b) Parties knew about the
difficulties of the
performance at the time of
entering into the contract
c) Performance has been
restricted for a temporary
period of Time
-Jyotishka Guha
106. SatyabrataGhosh vs Doctrine of a) Same as above Vvv imp
MugneeramBangur Fustration(Sec b) This doctrine is a positivist
& Co 56) law & Indian courts are not
allowed to borrow provisions
from English law

-Jyotishka Guha
107. Raja Dhruv Dev Scope & a) Frustration is not applied to In short
Chand vs Raja Applicability lease of agricultural land
Harmohinder Singh of doctrine of where the property is not
& another Frustration permanently unfit, the lessee
cannot avoid the lease on the
mere fact that he is unable to
use the land for the purpose it
was let to him

-Jyotishka Guha
108. Gwalior Rayon Silk Doctrine of No Frustration when the contracting imp
Manufacturing Co vs Frustration(Sec party is negligent of not checking the
 Shri Andavar& Co 56) viability of performing the contract
at the time of entering into the
-Jyotishka Guha contract
109. Superintendent Restraint of a) All contracts that put imp
Company of India vs Trade(Sec 27) restriction on a person to profess a
Krishnan Murgai lawful profession, trade or any
business after the termination of the
contract is void. This section does
not differentiate between ‘partial
restriction’ and ‘complete restriction
b) Here the word ‘leave’ is
interpreted as voluntary retirement of
the employee from the service and
not include ‘dismissal’ by the
employer
-Jyotishka Guha
110. Central Inland Water Public Policy In cases of standardized contracts, imp
Transport vs Brojo under §23 of there are 3 criterion for the terms of
Nath Ganguly and the ICA the contract to be unconscionable–
Others  Grossly unequal bargaining
power
 Unfair terms unreasonably
favoring the stronger party
 No meaningful choice except
to consent.
Thus, under §23 of the ICA, this
contract would be void as it affects a
lot of people who seek employment
and is opposed to public policy.

-Aadya Chaturvedi
111. Cory brothers and Apportionment No Apportionment because there Vv imp
company, limited v (Sec 61) was no current account between the
owners of the parties while transaction, unlike
Turkish steamship Clayton’s Case, which shows that
parties did not intend to apportion
- Jyotishka
guha
112. Clayton’s case Apportionment a) In a case where neither party Vv imp
(Sec 61) has applied for apportionment
- Jyotishka of debt, then it has to be
guha apportioned in discharge of
time in favour of the debtor.
It can be done in 2 ways: i)
application is to be made to
the oldest debt or to the debt
which the debtor mostly
interested to discharge
b) In a case of a current account
it is assumed that the 1st item
on the credit side is intended
to pay the 1st item on the
debtor side while
apportionment
113. Chaganlal Shrilal v Apportionment In the absence of apportionment of Vv imp
Gopilal Choturam (Sec 60) the debts by the debtor, it is open to
and Others the creditor to apply the general rule
i.e. money is 1st applied in the
- Jyotishka payment of interest & then in
guha payment of the capital, while
apportioning the debt
114. Gajram Singh And Apportionment When two portions of the debt have In short
Ors. vs Lala Kalyan (Sec 60) not been definitely ascertained and it
Mal is regarded as 1 debt, then it is not
open to the creditor to apportion the
payment towards the unspecified
portion of the debt
- Jyotishka
guha
115. Ouseph Lukka v Section 59 of According to S.59, when a debtor - -in short
Ananthanarayana the ICA. owes several distinct debt to a
Iyer Ramakrishna particular person and makes
Iyer payment, either with express
intimation or under circumstances
implying that the payment is to be
- Aarushi Jain applied to the discharge of some
particular debt, the payment if
accepted, must be appropriated
accordingly.
116. Industrial Credit and Section 59- Where only a single debt is in - In short
Development 61of the ICA. question the rules of appropriation do
Syndicate Now not apply. The principal and the
Called I. C. D. S. interest of a single debt cannot be
Limited v Smithaben treated as distinct debts.
H. Patel Smt.
and Others

- Aarushi Jain
117. Barber Maran And sec 38 Payment made to one of two persons no In short
Anr. vs Ramana jointly entitled under mortgage bond
Goundan And Anr. can be pleaded as a valid discharge
of the debt in an action brought by
- Megha Shaw the other person interested in the
bond. It was held that Mortgage
amount was discharged by payment
made to the plaintiffs co-mortgagee.
118. M. Annapurnamma sec 38 If the promisor was entitled to offer no imp
v Akkayya
payment to one of the promisees
- Megha Shaw which the latter was entitled to
accept, the promisor cannot be held
to be liable to pay over again to the
other promisees what he has already
paid.

119. UOI v Kishorilal Effect of a) In Collateral Agreement, Yes, vvv

Gupta Novation & there is no executory clause imp
Altercation(Se in the 2nd agreement & it can
c 62 & 63) on only be sued only on the
Arbitration Original contract
- Jyotishka Clause b) If there is any Arbitration
guha Clause in the Original
Contract & if it is not been
incorporated in the
substituted contract, then the
arbitration clause also
becomes void along with the
Original Contract
c) Dissent: The new agreement
(Accord & Satisfaction) did
not purport to destroy the
original contract or the
arbitration clause but only to
settle the dispute of the
Original Contract. Thus the
Arbitration Clause stands
apart from rest of the contract
& it is not affected by
novation or altercation
120. Rankanidhi Sahu v Material Any novation or altercation without Imp
Nandkishore Sahu alteration the free consent of the other party
makes the 2nd contract void

- Jyotishka
guha

121. Pachkodi Gulab v AREA OF RATIO- The appeal of the plaintiffs imp
Krishnaji LAW- was dismissed as the striking off of
- Aman Wasan Material the name of Girja Shankar from the
alteration in a Sarkat, without the knowledge of the
contract defendant, just to extend the period
of limitation, amounted to material
alteration of the contract.

122. New Standard Bank S 62 The bank(appellant) received claims In short

Ltd. v Probodh against both debts without any
Chandra reservation, and in full satisfaction.
Chakravarty Accord and Satisfaction made by one
- Aman Wasan of several parties jointly liable to the
same creditor for the same
discharges the claim against all.

123. Murlidhar Chatterjee RATIO- S39 and S64 apply in imp

v. International film AREA OF tandem in this case. Plaintiff should
company LAW- be entitled to recover 4,000 from the
- Aman Wasan S39,53,55,64,6 defendants. A contract which is put
5,75 to an end, is in fact voidable. The
right to damages provides no
Another insuperable objection to application
notable point of section 64 to cases of rescission
was whether a under section 39 and section 64
contract, which applies to the present case
is “put an
end to”, is
necessarily
voidable.
124. Chunna Mal Ram S 39, s 63 RATIO- Plaintiff’s appeal to seek V imp
Nath v. Mool Chand compensation was dismissed. The
Ram Bhagat Appellants, had put an end to the
agreement and expressedly dispensed
- Aman Wasan the respondents from delivery. The
dispensation to perform the
agreement under Section 63 is
enough proof to deny the plaintiffs
the damages for breach of
performance, as they themselves
dispensed with the promise they are
basing their claim on.
125. Kuju Colleries v. Sec 65 As the plaintiff was already in the V imp
Jharkhand Mines Ltd business of the mining operations
and had the advantage of consulting
solicitors evidenced by the fact that
the deed was prepared by the
solicitors, hence, there was no
occasion for plaintiff to be in
ignorance of law such that the deed
was void ab initio and not
subsequently discovered to be void.
Since the plaintiff is to be imputed
with the knowledge of law in present
circumstances, hence the act of
paying the consideration money
could not be said to be induced by
‘mistake’ as to law in force under the
realm of S.72 such that plaintiff
-Megha Shaw could not recover anything.
126. M/s Alopi Prashad v. Sec 56 and 73, 1. vague assurances don’t modify imp
UOI quantum contract and nor can be invoked to
meriut have a cause of action in respect of
promissory estoppel for it was never
intended to be legally binding.
2. There is nothing in Indian law
which justifies the view that a
change of circumstances ‘completely
outside the contemplation of parties’
from the time when the contract was
made will justify a Court to absolve a
party from express terms thereof. A
contract isn’t frustrated merely
because of change in circumstances.
Therefore rather than ‘intention of
the parties, as reasonable men’,
focus should be on ‘true
interpretation of contract.’
3. Therefore the contention of
plaintiffs that “turn of events were
never in the contemplation of
parties”, hence, original contract
wasn’t binding, was unsupportable
by law. Further, it was untrue in fact
also for after three years of WWII
had been already started was the
mutual alteration in original contract
brought about, such that parties were
fully aware as to the altered
circumstances. Further, contract was
never rendered impossible or
unlawful u/s 56 as it was duly
performed by the plaintiffs and they
received remuneration by govt.
expressly stipulated to be paid
-Megha Shaw thereunder.
127. Puran Lal Shah v. Quantum Where work is done under a contract
State of UP meruit and sec persuant to the terms thereof no
70 amount can be claimed by way of
-Megha Shaw probably sec quantum meriut.plaintiff was not
56 too entitled to any extra amount as he
agreed to for work increased till
30%.
128. M/s Young Sec 62 The old contract was substituted by a imp
Achievers v. IMS new contract by mutual consent, so it
Learning Resources cannot be said that the new contract
Pvt. Ltd. is accord by satisfaction.So the
arbitration clause of old contract
cannot exist because of novation.
The new contract, records the mutual
agreement between the parties that
the appellant shall not be eligible to
use -the trade mark IMS in any form
and any breach thereof entitles
respondent to seek legal recourse on
-Megha Shaw violation of trade mark IMS.
129. Harnath Kaur v. Sec 65 The agreement was manifestly void imp
Indar Bahadur Singh from inception and it was void
because its subject matter was
incapable ofbeing bound in the
manner stipulated.But this was not
presented or discovered in the
pleading.
There was misapprehension of
private rights of respondant in the
village which he purport to sell by
theinstrument and the true nature of
those rights were not discovered by
the plaintiff at the time of resistence
of possession.
Thus the agreement was
discovered to be void and per sec
65 , the plaintiff is entitled to
recover compensation.
-Megha Shaw
130. M/S Interglobe Exclusive A)The exclusive jurisdiction imp
Aviation Ltd vs Jurisdiction clause in the case gave the Delhi
N.Satchidanand Clause High Court jurisdiction of all
S. 28 cases no matter where the dispute
- Karan occurs. This makes the clause
Motiani itself void. In our present case,
the passenger had got on the
flight from Delhi and hence
Delhi HC does have jurisdiction,
but since the clause is part of an
adhesion contract that is
applicable to all the consumers,
this clause itself is void.
B)The exemption of liability
 clause gives Indigo the right to
not give food and water in
ordinary circumstances, but when
the consumer is stuck inside the
flight for say 11 hours, the
circumstance is extraordinary.
The consumers were completely
under the care of Indigo. They
did not have any other provision
to get food. In these
circumstances, a term has to be
implied into the contract whereby
Indigo is liable to give food to its
consumer. This implied term is
obvious and is backed by
guidelines of international
conventions as well as airport
guidelines.
C) The respondent was given a
choice to leave the flight and
refund his money. The
respondent should have
reasonably known that he could
not expect anything more than
what was provided to him by the
aircraft.

131. Mulheim Sec 62, The arbitration clause is distinct fom In short
Pipecoatings Gmbh doctrine of the main contract of which it is an
vs Welspun Fintrade separability independent and seperable part.
Limited &Anr Parties when they arrived at the
MOU sought to settle the the manner
in which the preemptive rights under
the Share Purchase Agreement
would be dischaged by performance.
When by their mutual agreement
they purported to to resolve the
modalities for working out the
performance of the clause on
preemption, thet did not render the
arbitration agreement null and void,
inoperative or incapable of
performance.

-Megha Shaw
132. Lata Construction & Novation Of The rights of the agreement of 1987 In short
Ors vs Dr. Contract were kept alive even after the second
Rameshchandra Under S. 62 agreement. There was no substitution
Ramniklal Shah of the earlier agreement in entirety
by the newer agreement. Under S. 62
- Karan of the ICA, this contains the
Motiani principle of ‘novation’ of contract.
 One of the essential requirements of
novation was complete substitution
of the old contract by the new.
Substitution of a new contract would
have the effect of rescinding or
completely altering the terms of the
original contract. A substituted
contract should rescind or alter or
extinguish the previous contract. In
this case, the rights under the original
contract were not given up and it was
specifically provided that the old
contract shall stand extinguished
only on payment of 951000/-. The
amounts were not paid. Therefore,
appellants could still claim
enforcement of those rights. The
right to hand over possession of a flat
would only end if the 951000/- was
paid to the respondents, in pursuance
of the new contract. They had not
done so, and thus the respondents
could legally invoke that there was a
‘deficiency in service’ on the part of
the respondents.
133. K.M.P.R.N.M. Firm Whether The contract as regards the six bales imp
Merchants ... vs P. Novation was not executed and that before
Theperumal Chetty Recession or execution or even before time for
A Merchant Substitution of performance the parties agreed to
- Karan motiani Contract can confine the operation of the original
be done after contract to 8 bales only. The original
Breach contract was altered. Therefore there
Under S. 62 is no doubt that S.62 applies and the
and 63 parties were at a perfect liberty to do
this.
134. Uttamchand vs Sec 65 Since the agreement was discovered imp
Mohandas to be void in the present case, section
65 applies.
- Parth Gala

135. Rama Shah v. Lal Sec 61 So long as the payment was made imp
Chand within time the appropriation
- Parth Gala towards the principal debt might be
made at any subsequent time and
would give rise to a fresh period
computed from the date of the
payment.
136. Payana Reena Sec 62 A claim on the bills and a claim for imp
Layana Chetty v. the amount found due under the
Pana Lana Pana award and for which payment was
Lana Palaniappa provided by the agreement are not
Chetty the same cause of action but are in
- Parth Gala truth inconsistent and mutually
exclusive causes of action.

137. All India Power Sec 62  Waiver (u/s 62) is an no In short

Engineer v Sasan intentional relinquishment of
Power Limited a known right, and, therefore,
- Divyansh
unless there is a clear
Sharma
intention to relinquish a right
that is fully known to a party,
a party cannot be said to
waive it.
 If any element of public
interest is involved and a
waiver takes place by one of
the parties to an agreement,
such waiver will not be given
effect to, if it is contrary to
such public interest.
Whenever waiver is pleaded, it for
the party to show that an agreement
for the same has come into being
138. Lipkin Gorman v Sec 73 The bona fide recipient of the stolen no Vv imp
Karpnale Ltd. & anr. money is under an obligation to
restore an equivalent sum to the
- Divyansh
plaintiff if he had not given full
sharma
consideration for it and thus had
been unjustly enriched by it unless
he could show that he-
1. He had altered his position
in good faith so that it would
be inequitable to require him
to make restitution or
restitution in full
2. This change of position was
not in the ordinary course
of events, i.e. defendant must
establish that he incurred
expenditure of the money so
received, which he would not
have incurred but for money
so received.
139. Govindram Sec 69 The words ‘interested in payment’ No imp
Gordhandas Seksaria (u/s 69) themselves do not require
vs The State Of that aperson to be interested in a
Gondal
payment should at the same time
- Divyansh have a legal proprietary interest in
Sharma the property in respect of which the
payment is made. The proposition
that "bound by law" also covers
obligations of a contract or tort.

140. Musammat Munni Sec 69 ‘A person who is interested in the no In short

Bibi Alias Ambika payment’ (u/s 69),is one who should
... vs TirlokiNath really and honestly believe that he
must make the payment in his own
- Divyansh
sharma interest. Therefore, when a proprietor
in good faith pendinglitigation makes
the necessary payments for the
preservation of the estate in dispute,
and the estateis afterwards adjudged
to his opponent, he should be
reimbursed.
However, no charge on property is
created in favour of such a person
who makes the payment on behalf of
the other. Therefore, such a person
who pays for other cannot treat
reimbursement by the other as
condition precedent to the other
getting possession of that property.

141. P.E.R.M. Sec 68 The purposes for which a loan is Imp

AnnamalaiChetty, wanted are often future, as regards
Joint ... vs the actual application, and a lender
Satyavadivel can rarely have, unless he enters on
Muthuswami the management, the means of
controlling and directing the actual
application. Their Lordships do not
think that a bona fide creditor should
suffer when he has acted honestly
and with due caution, but is himself
deceived.
Megha Shaw
142. Nathu Lal v. Sec 62 However, as regards the first V imp
Mussamat Gomti alteration as to date of the agreement,
Kaur same date could be inferred from
vernacular date mentioned in the
agreement as 25th March 1844. As
regards the second alteration, since
the word “shartia” meaning
 conditional was visible hence, it
could be clearly implied that it was
intended to be conditional sale
agreement and consequently
agreement was of nature of mortgage
and not of sale agreement. Therefore
these alteration were not material and
hence, did not operate to make the
-Megha Shaw mortgage void.
143. State of Bihar v Ram Sec 62 There was nothing on record to show imp
Ballabh Das Jalan that Bank of Bihar and Food Supply
and Another Officer contracted new debts with
plaintiff in substitution of the old
debts due to it from the defendants
and bound themselves for the
payment of the same so as to entitle
the plaintiff to enforce its realization
from them. In other words, they
neither accepted any liability nor
expressed any intention to be bound
by the debt originally due from
defendant so as to extinguish old
debt due against defendant and create
new debt, now due against them.
Hence there was no novation because
of the substitution in terms of the
contract to redeem the debt by the
bank. Defendants were liable to
portion of remaining debt which was
- Megha Shaw not recovered by the bank.
144. Morris v Baron Sec 62 whether there has been rescission or Vv imp
mere variation of terms must depend
-Megha Shaw upon the intention of the parties
and the nature of the new contract
itself: In case of
variation/alteration, there is no
such executory clause in second
contract as would enable parties to
sue upon it alone if the first contract
did not exist; while in case
of novation /substitution, parties
could sue on the second contract
alone and the first contract is
extinguished either by express words
or because second dealing with the
same subject matter or having the
same legal effect as the first but in a
materially different way.
In present case, both the parties
mutually intended and agreed not
merely to vary the original contract
but to set it aside and substitute
another for it, as the two contracts
are in conflict with each other w.r.t.
 fundamental or material
provisions which go to their ‘root’.

145. Boja Sellappa Reddy section 69 The common law principle requires a imp
vs Vridhachala common liability to be sued for that
Reddy which the plaintiff had to pay and an
interest of the defendant in the
- Akash payment in the sense that he gets the
sharma benefit of the payment, either
entirely, as in the case of the assignee
of a lease, or pro tanto, as in the case
of a surety who has paid and has his
action for contribution against his co-
surety
146. Mothooranath section 69 a person who is interested in the In short
Chuttopadhya vs payment of money which another is
Kristokumar Ghose bound by law to pay, and who
- Akash therefore pays it, is entitled to be
Sharma reimbursed by the other

147. Nash v Inman obligation for Necessaries means goods or services imp
- Akash non-gratuitous suitable to the condition in life of
Sharma act(section 70) minor, or any other person incapable
of forming contract for himself, and
as to his actual requirements at the
time of sale and delivery”. This
means that not only the goods need
to be suitable and necessary to the
condition in life of a minor (here) but
also be needed by minor in actuality
148. Mulamchand vs obligation for So where a claim for compensation imp
State Of Madhya non-gratuitous is made by one person against
Pradesh act(section 70) another under s. 70, it is not on the
- Akash basis of any subsisting contract
Sharma between the parties but a different
kind of obligation.

149. Anand Construction section 74 and not only that legal injury has to be V imp
Works v State of sec 70 proved but also the loss or damages
Bihar under Section 73 of the Indian
- Akash Contract Act has to be proved
Sharma
150. Union Of India vs Section 70 trial and division bench judgement no In short
Sita Ram Jaiswal set aside and government
accepted didn't use the them but
- Asit Singh liable to pay
Baghel

151. Sri Sri Sri Gajapathi Obligation When the separate registry comes no Vv imp
Kistna ... vs P. under s 70 for into existence defendant has
Srinivasa Charlu payments of to compensate the plaintiff
- Asit Singh taxes as the old agreement is expired with
Bagel its benefits.

152. State of WB v BK Obligation THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NO V imp

Mondal and sons under s 70 DONE AND GOVERNMENT
- Asit Singh ENJOYED BENEFIT
Bagel OF IT AND HENCE SEC 70 IS
APPLICABLE ON
THEM HIGH COURT DECISION
UPHELD GOVERNMENT MUST
PAY THE FIRM FOR THE EXTRA
WORK.
153. Mahabir Kishore & Liability of There is no estoppel when mistake is Vv imp
ors. v State of MP person to common to both assessee and taxing
whom money authority. Date of M. P. High Court
- Bhavbhuti is paid, or decision holding the cess invalid
pandey thing delivered cannot be taken as starting point of
by mistake or limitation, as the Government itself
under coercion had continued collecting the cess
(Section 72 of even after it was held illegal.
The Indian
Contract Act)
154. Sales tax officer v. Liability of No question of estoppel can ever V imp
Kanhaiya Lal person to hom arise where both the parties, as in the
money is paid, present case, are labouring under the
- Bhavbhuti or thing mistake of law and one party is not
pandey delivered by more to blame than the other.
mistake or Estoppel arises only when the
under coercion plaintiff by his acts or conduct makes
(Section 72 of a representation to the defendant of a
the The Indain certain state of facts which is acted
Contract Act) upon by the defendant to his
detriment
155. Hadley v. Baxendale Compensation The test of the foresight of a V imp
- Bhavbhuti for reasonable man is the only bases for
pandey loss/damage determining the damages provided
caused by after the breach of contract.
breach of
contract and
failure to
discharge
obligation
 resembling
those created
by contract
(Section 73 of
The Indian
Contract Act)

156. Victoria Laundey v. Compensation distinguished losses from imp

Newman Industries for “particularly lucrative dyeing
- Bhavbhuti loss/damage contracts” as a different type of loss
pandey caused by which would only be recoverable if
breach of the defendant had sufficient
contract and knowledge of them to make it
failure to reasonable to attribute to him
discharge acceptance of liability for such
obligation losses.
resembling
those created
by contract
(Section 73 of
The Indian
Contract Act)

157. Murlidhar v. sec 73 A entered in a contract with B to sell no imp

Harishchandra certain type of canvass. The railway
receipt was supposed to be delivered
- Megha shaw to Kanpur which was not delivered.
B purchased it for resale in Kolkata
but it could not be inferred from the
contract. Neither B can prove the
market price in Kanpur was different
from the contract price. So due to
lack of information to A, about the
resale of the goods in Kolkata, B
can’t be provided damages as per the
difference of the price in Kolkata and
the contract price because the
damages did not arise naturally in the
usual course of things from such
breach. Hence the appeal by
respondents to not pay the damages
is allowed.
158. Lachia Shetty v sec 73 Defendant breached the contract no imp
Coffee Board which was formed during the auction
- Megha shaw sale by the plaintiff. So defendants
were liable for the loss arising on
resale.
Moreover plaintiff has no duty to
minimize damages because no one
has a right of action against the non
defaulting party if he does not
reasonably avoid certain
consequences arising from the
 default

159. Albert hochster v. Anticipatory A party who receives clear notice of - -

Edgar frederick de la breach of repudiation of a contract before
tour contract. performance is due may bring suit
immediately, before the performance
is due.

- Aarushi jain
160. White and carter v. The right to If there is a legitimate interest, other This case seems -
McGregor terminate a than immediate financial interest, to to ignore the
contract and perform the contract then the party is general rule of the
the duty entitled to recover damages. duty to mitigate
- Aarushi jain to mitigate. loss applicable to
claims for
damages.
161. AKAS Jamal v Sec 73 Damages for breach of contract such
Moola Dawood Sons as a contract of sale are normally to
be assessed as at the date of the
breach. The profit accruing should
not be deducted from the damages
for non-acceptance.

‘The seller’s loss at the date of the

breach was and remained the
difference between contract price and
market price at that date. When the
buyer committed this breach the
seller remained entitled to the shares,
and became entitled to damages such
as the law allows. The first of these
two properties, namely, the shares,
he kept for a time and subsequently
sold them in a rising market. His
pocket received benefit, but his loss
at the date of the breach remained
- Megha Shaw unaffected.’
162. Ramgopal v. Dhanji Sec 73 An estimate of profit would be the
Jadhavji Bhatia natural way of measuring the
plaintiff’s loss and, though only an
estimate , it could be correctly
formed by the court,the actual course
of markets being known at the date
of the trail.
Defendant’s (firm) action has led to
anticipatory breach.So the plaintiff is
entitled to measure his damages as
they than stood.
 Hence, the appeal by the respondants
-Megha Shaw fails.

163. Ghaziabad Sec 73 Usually, no damages in contract are

Development awarded for injury to the plaintiffs’
Authority v. UOI feelings, or for his mental distress,
anguish, annoyance, loss of
reputation or social discredit caused
by the breach of contract.
Exception: if the contract is one
whose performance is to provide
piece of mind or freedom from
distress (eg: watching movie in
theatre, booking holidays abroad,
booking a hotel, etc) or if at the time
the contract was made, such damages
were within the contemplation of the
parties as a likely consequence of the
breach of contract.
In present case, since the contract
was breached by GDA by not giving
the possession of the house to the
claimants even after reasonable
period of time had elapsed; it was
liable for paying back the amount
taken along with interest; and not the
damages w.r.t. mental agony for it
did not fall into any of the exception.
-Megha Shaw

164. Ganga Saran vs Ram Sec 56 Doctrine of frustration cannot be

Charan Ram Gopal
invoked where there is a breach of
contract by defendant in cases where
there was no contingent terms on
which the contracts is based upon.
(i) that, on a proper
construction of the con-
tract, delivery of the goods was not
their being supplied to the
respondents by the Victoria
Mills. The words "prepared by the
Mills" were only a de-
scription of the goods to be
supplied, and the expressions
"as soon as they are prepared" and
"as soon as they are
supplied to us by the said Mill
"simply indicated the proc-
ess of delivery. This was not
 therefore a case in which the
doctrine of frustration of contract
could be invoked. (ii)
Even apart from the construction of
-Megha Shaw the agreement, as the
respondents had not shown that they
had placed an order for
the goods with the Victoria Mills
and yet the Mills had failed t
deliver and the appellant was entitled
to recover damages.

165. Murlidhar v. Interpretation The term ‘voidable’ doesn’t only Vv imp

International Film of S. 64 include cases of undue influence,
Corporation fraud, coercion, etc. but also cases
where one party gets the right to
- Aditya Singh rescind the contract due to breach by
the other. Hence, a party rescinding
the contract under under S. 39
(breach) has to return the benefits
received from the other party under
S. 64.
166. Great Eastern S 70 the plaintiff lawfully carried a cargo
Shipping Co. Ltd. vs of coal and delivered it to the
Union Of India defendants’ place. The
correspondence showed that the
- Aditya Singh plaintiff did not intend to do it
gratuitously and the defendant had
accepted the cargo and thus
defendant became liable to pay
compensation to the plaintiff under
section 70.
167. MS Shoes East Breach and (1) The refusal by the promisor to V imp
Limited v Munak Repudiation perform bestows upon the promisee
Chemicals Limited the right to rescind the contract or to
- Aditya Singh accept later performance by ignoring
the breach.
(2) Limitation period starts when the
notification of failure of performance
is received.
168. State of Orissa v S. 53 & 54 A contract (here, lending money) in
Harekrishna order to facilitate the performance of
Mahatab and Others another contract (here, shipping ore)
- Aditya Singh does not always amount to reciprocal
promise unless it is explicit in terms
of the contract or implicit from the
nature of the contract.
169. Nathulal v Reicprocal The transferor of any property is No dissent imp
Phoolchand promises debarred from seeking against the
transferee the enforcement of any
- Harishankar right that the transferee has taken,
Raghunath other than a right expressly provided
for by the contract; if one party to a
contract of reciprocal promises fails
to fulfill his obligations, the other
party, It will be assumed that the
other party would be at all times
willing to carry out the contract.
170. Chanakya and Section 50 If the promise has not specified any
Company and Others means of performance, it will be the
v Kay Aar obligation of the promisor to carry
Decobuild Private out the performance through any
Limited means
- Harishankar
Raghunath
171. Photo Production Exemption Whether or not an exclusion clause
Ltd v clauses& the applies (the extent of the exclusion
SecuricorTransport doctrine of clause) in the case of fundamental
Ltd fundamental breach of contract does NOT depend
breach on the kind of breach, but rather on
- Harishankar the intention of the contracting
Raghunath parties.
172. V. L. Narasu, Frustration and For ‘self-induced’ frustration, mere
Carrying On section 39 passive negligence is not enough, the
Business Under The intention of the party to repudiate the
Name and Style of contract must be clearly visible.
Narasu Pictures Essential conditions for frustration:
Circuit v P. S. V. 1) of a
Iyer and Others permanent nature so as to render the
contract impossible to be performed
- Harishankar on any
Raghunath future date or, 2) of fundamental
nature or, 3) of such a duration, so as
to make
the contract, when resumed, a
different one from the original
contract.
When a contract is dependent on the
continued existence of one particular
thing, and the thing comes to an
unforeseen end, the owner is not
bound by the contract.
173. Heyman v Darwins Repudiatary I) If one party to a contract
Ltd breach and sec repudiates it and that
62 repudiation is accepted, then
‘By that acceptance he is
discharged from further
performance and may bring
an action for damages, but
the contract itself is not
 rescinded.’ The primary
obligations under the contract
may come to an end, but
secondary obligations then
arise, among them being the
obligation to compensate the
innocent party. The original
rights may not then be
enforced. But a consequential
right arises in the innocent
party to obtain a remedy from
the party who repudiated the
contract for his failure in
performance
II) the parties are at one in asserting
that they entered into a binding
contract, but a difference has
arisen between them as to
whether there has been a breach
by one side or the other, or as to
whether circumstances have
arisen which have discharged one
or both parties from further
performance, such differences
should be regarded as differences
which have arisen ‘in respect of’,
or ‘with regard to’ or ‘under’ the
contract, and an arbitration clause
which uses there, or similar,
expressions should be construed
accordingly
III) there is no reason for non
application of arbitration clause
in this case.
174. Hadley v Baxendale Sec 73 The damages available for breach of V imp
contract include:
1. Those which may fairly and
reasonably be considered arising
naturally from the breach of contract
or
2. Such damages as may reasonably
be supposed to have been in the
contemplation of both the parties at
the time the contract was made.

If any special circumstances exists

which were actually communicated
to the Defendant, the Claimant may
recover any damages which would
ordinarily follow from a breach of
contract under the special
circumstances communicated.
175. Millett v Van Heek when a contract provides for delivery Vv imp
& Co within a reasonable time, or within a
damages reasonable time after a future date, it
-Anushri Mandal is not a contract for delivery at a
fixed time within the meaning of the
section,
and they therefore held that the new
contract was not a contract for
delivery
at a fixed time, but they further held
that the rule contained in the section
that the damages were to be assessed
at the time of the refusal to deliver
does
not apply to a case where the breach
is an anticipatory breach, and that
there
was no specific rule in the section
with-in which the case fell, and so
the
damages were to be assessed at the
times
when the goods ought to have been
delivered, but if it could be shown by
either party that the reasonable
course
for minimising the damages would
be otherwise this rule should not be
applied.

176. Melachrino v damages If there is anticipatory breach of imp

Nickoll contract then the buyer is
entitled to damages as per the
-Anushri Mandal difference in market price and
contract price on date of
repurchase.If it is not an
anticipatory breach then the
buyer is entitled to damages as
per the difference between
market price and contract on the
date on which it was supposed to
be delivered or performed
177. Dunlop v Lambert damages Although, generally speaking, where
there is a delivery to a carrier
Divyansh Sharma to deliver to a consignee, the
consignee is the proper person to
bring the action against the
carrier if they should be lost (General
rule); yet the consignor may have a
right to sue if he made a special
contract with the carrier, and the
carrier has agreed to take the goods
from the consignor
and to deliver them to any particular
person at a particular place, which
 special contract
supersedes the necessity of showing
ownership in the goods. In such a
case, consignor is able to maintain an
action, though the goods may be the
goods of the consignee.

178. Funnell v Adams & damages Plaintiff was entitled to damags due
Remer to defendant’s negligence and he can
claim the amount invested for the
Megha Shaw new work which was undertaken by
the plaintiff.

179. Jarvis v Swans Tours damages A person is entitled to get damages

Ltd for mental distress in a breach of a
contract when he relies on an
Divyansh Sharma expectation – _when contract itself
was for enjoyment and pleasure

You are entitled to damages for

breach of contract of entertainment
and enjoyment (mental distress)
180. Frederick Thomas Sec 73 If the damage is and it’s extent is
Kingsley v Secretary uncertain then the plaintiff fails to
of State India claim damages under sec 73 of the
ICA because of uncertainity in the
-Megha Shaw cause of damage itself and in it’s
extent too.

181. Quinn v Burch Bros Damages Foreseeability of possible injury no

(Builders) Ltd shall be a criteria to prove or
disprove negligence. The test for
-Girija determining whether the damages
arising from breach of contract were
reasonably foreseeable at the time
the contract was entered into as
likely to result from its
breach.Connection between breach
of contract and injury sustained must
be suffientely established through
causation
182. Maula Bux vs Union Damages The party complaining of breach is no
Of India entitled ,whether or not actual
damage or loss is proved to have
-Girija been caused thereby, to receive from
the party who has broken the
contract reasonable compensation.
183. Sir Chunilal V. Sec 74 When a basic limit is set for a
Mehta And Sons, liquidated damages, then the profits
Ltd vs The Century which could have been higher than
Spinning basic limit but uncertain, can’t be
claimed.Only the basic amount can
--Girija be claimed because of uncertainity
and hence it falls under section 74.
184. Fateh Chand v Sec 74 In the present case, the payment of
Balkishan Das Rs. 2,50,000 could not be treated
merely as part-payment towards the
total price, because, the terms of
business of the respondent applied to
the contract, and under those terms,
since the conditions regarding
earnest money are satisfied, the
amount deposited by the appellant
was earnest money and the
respondent was entitled to forfeit.
The principle that money could be
forfeited, and that s. 74 of the
Contract Act applied only to the
amount paid by the buyer which was
not earnest money.
Plaintiff was liable to get the money
back.
185. State Of Kerala And Sec 74 penalty levied on account of breach
Ors. vs United of agreement - party complaining of
Shippers And breach of contract and claiming
Dredgers Ltd. compensation entitled to succeed
only on proof of 'legal injury' having
-Aadya chaturvedi been suffered by him in sense of
some loss or damage having been
sustained on account of such breach -
appellant had not suffered any legal
injury - held, appellant not entitled to
compensation.
186. M/S. Kailash Nath Sec 74 The claimant in a breach of contract
Associates vs Delhi case is entitled to ‘reasonable
Development compensation’ not exceeding the
Authority &Anr sum named in the contract as payable
in the event of breach.
-Partha Gala

187. Steel Authority Of Sec 74 1)Arbitration - Award-Not open to

India Ltd vs Gupta
Brother Steel Tubes
Ltd
-Aadya Chaturvedi
challenge on ground that Arbitrator
reached wrong conclusion-Courts do
not interfere with conclusion of
Arbitrator even with regard to
construction of contract-If it is
possible view of matter.
(2) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 74-
Damages-In absence of agreement
specifying damages for breaches
 alleged by respondent-Section 74 not
at all attracted

188. Oil & Natural Gas Sec 74 If the parties had agreed upon a sum
Corporation Ltd vs as being pre- estimated genuine
Saw Pipes liquidated damages there was no
reason for the tribunal to ask the
-Partha Gala purchaser to prove his loss. that
Liquidated Damages should be
regarded as reasonable
compensation, while penalties should
not. Further, it also appears to have
concluded in case of penalty
damages will have to be proved. The
Hon’ble Court reaffirms that no
compensation at all be awarded if the
court concludes that no loss is likely
to occur because of the breach.
189. V. Venkataramiah damages The Court can treat any stipulation,
Pillai And Anr. vs P. the object of which is to secure the
V. Subramania Pillai performance of the main contract
between the parties, as a penalty and
-Partha Gala a stipulation for payment of
compound interest may be, though it
need not always be, by way of
penalty.