Cases under Free Consent

Question 1

Astley v. reynolds

Answer 1

COERCION- Sec 15

Plaintiff pledge plate to defendant for 20 pounds
Pay 20 pounds to redeem
sue to recover amount
Detention of property and Coercion

Money was paid under duress of goods, the availability of a legal remedy did not prevent the court from reaching a conclusion that the payment was caused by illegitimate pressure.

Question 2

Moody v Cox

Answer 2

UNDUE INFLUENCE- Sec 16

fiduciary relationship between the purchaser, Moody, and his solicitor and vendor Hatt and the presumption of undue influence.

Question 3

Derry v. Peek

Answer 3

Assertion of the fact without belief in truth (FRAUD- Sec 17)

Company prospectus - authorized by Act of Parliament to use steam
Fact - Subject to approval of Board of Trade
Consent refused and Co. wound up
Share holders sued company for fraud
Court - Not guilty of fraud

Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made
Knowingly
Without belief in its truth or
Recklessly careless whether it be true or false

Question 4

Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shidappa Hireknrabar

Answer 4

Active Concealment
(FRAUD- Sec 17)

Husband persuade illiterate wife to sign document
Mortgage two lands to secure his indebtedness
Mortgages four lands instead
Active Concealment

An active concealment of a material facts is a fraud
‘any other act fitted to deceive’ naturally means any act which is done with the obvious intention to committing fraud

Question 5

Shri krishnan v kurukshetra University

Answer 5

Mere silence is no fraud
(FRAUD- Sec 17)

Exam candidate did not mention lack of attendance in exam form
Duty of University to cross verify
University estopped from cancelling exam of candidate

Ordinarily, mere silence is no fraud, even if its result is to conceal “facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract“- Lord Halsbury

Question 6

P. Sarojam v. LIC

Answer 6

Duty to speak
(FRAUD- Sec 17)

False answers in state of health in life Insurance
Policy voidable even if medical officer of cooperation assured

Duty to speak (Contract Uberrima Fides)- when person keeping silence is under duty to speak. Duty to speak arises when 1 party reposes trust and confidence in the other. Duty to speak also arises when 1 of the party is utterly without any means to discovering the truth and has to depend on the good sense of the other party.

Question 7

With v. O’Flanagan

Answer 7

Change of circumstances
(FRAUD- Sec 17)

Medical practitioners practice worth 2000 pounds/year
Plaintiff bought practice after 5 months
Worth educed practice due to serious illness

Question 8

R.C. Thakkar v. Bombay Housing Board

Answer 8

Half-truths
(FRAUD- Sec 17)

Costs of construction false in tender
False representation with intent
No defence - Plaintiff could have discovered truth by reasonable effort

A person may keep silence but if he speaks, a duty arises to disclose the whole truth

Question 9

DDA v. Skipper Construction Co (P) Ltd.

Answer 9

Promise without intent of performing
(FRAUD- Sec 17)

Builder book 3 times the available accommodation and collected money
No provision for interest on deposit money
Fraud - intent to deceive