Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

:Answer giving reasons:

Que-1: X agrees to pay Y Rs. 1000 if Y writes 100 pages for him in one minute. Is it a valid contract? Ans: No, the above statement does not respect one of the elements of a valid contract possibility of performance as it is impossible for Y to write 100 pages in one minute. As per section 56 of Indian Contract Act, an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.

Que-2: A threatens to shoot B if he does not sell his new Bajaj scooter to A for Rs. 2,000. B agrees .What is the nature of the agreement? Ans: The above agreement is voidable at option of B, as it has been brought about by coercion

Que-3: A. Contracts with B that A shall whitewash Bs house for Rs. 100. A. is ready and willing to execute the work accordingly, but B prevents him from doing so. What is the nature of the agreement? Ans: The contract is voidable at the option of A. When a contract contains reciprocal promises, and one party to the contract prevents the other from performing his promises, then the contract becomes voidable at the options at the part so prevented.

Que-4: X Agrees to sell and deliver 10 bags of wheat to Y for Rs. 25,000 within one week. But X does not supply the wheat within the specified time. What is the nature of the agreement?

Ans: Above agreement (contract) is voidable at the option of Y. When a party to the contract promises to do certain thing within a specified time, but fails to do it, then the contract becomes voidable at the option of promisee. Que-5: A agrees to sell B 100 bags of wheat at Rs. 650 per bag. Before delivery the government bans private trading in wheat. What is the nature of the agreement? Ans: Above agreement is void due to subsequent illegality. As government imposes bans on private trading in wheat, so it has become illegal to trade wheat privately. A contract becomes void by subsequent illegality.

Que-6: A pays B Rs. 1,000 for Bs agreeing to sell his horse to him. It turns out that the horse was dead at the time of the bargain, through neither party was aware of the fact. In this case, is the agreement void? Ans: Yes, the agreement is void because both the parties were under a mistake of fact regarding existence of the subject matter.

Que-7: X purchased a horse form Y and promised to buy another, if the first one proves lucky. The horse won 4 races in a row but X refused to buy the second horse. Can X be compelled to buy the horse? Ans: X cannot be compelled to buy second horse from Y, since it was just a promise & there was no intention to create legal relations.

Que-8: A and B are friends. B treats A during As illness. B does not accept payment from A for the treatment and A promises Bs son, X, to pay him Rs 1,000. A being in poor circumstances is unable to pay. X sues A for the money. Can X recover? Ans: No, although it was a valid agreement but was of social nature. Agreements of a social or domestic nature do not contemplate legal relations, and as such they do not give rise to a contract.

Que-9: A minor fraudulently represented to a money lender that he was a major, and obtained a loan of Rs. 500. Has the money lender any right of action against the minor for the money lent, or for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation? Ans: No, the money lender has no right of action against the minor for the money lent, or for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, as the contract itself is void based on the incompetency of one party. If a minor has received a benefit under a void contract, he cannot be asked to refund the same.

Que-10: A buys a motorcar, thinking that it is worth Rs 80,000, and pays Rs. 80,000 for it. When it is only worth Rs 40,000, can he avoid the contract on the ground of mistake? Ans: A cannot avoid the contract, as A is not being coerced and the contract has been executed under free consent of both parties.

Que-11: M, having two houses A and B, offers to sell house A, and N not knowing that M has two houses, thinks of house B and agrees to buy it. Is the agreement void? Ans: Yes, the agreement is void. Here, there is not real consent as both the parties are under mistake (bilateral mistake). Both parties are thinking about two different houses being sold and purchased.

Que-12: A, has a horse with a hole in the hoof. A, so fills it up that the defect cannot be discovered on a reasonable examination. B purchases the horse under the impression that the horse is sound. Is the agreement valid? Ans: No, the agreement is not valid. Here A is guilty of fraud and as such on discovery of the defect B can avoid the contract because his unilateral mistake has been caused by As fraud.