Nature And Formation Flashcards
When does an agreement becomes a contract
1. Sec 10 Free consent (13, 14) Competent (11) Lc (23) Lo (23) Not expressly declared void (24-30) (56)
- Vage and ambiguous ( art 29)
- Written down. If law of land requires
- Intent to enter into a legal relation
BALFOUR vs BALFOUR - family arrangement donot inted legal consequences to follow
Offer vs invitation to offer
- 2(a) - signifies to other his assent to donor abstain- with a view to obtain the asseng of other to do Or abstain from doing something– OFFER
- I20- without signifying his final assent- proposes certain terms on which he is willing to negotiate
Examples of invitation to offer
- Prospects issued by company inviting application
- Objects display in a shop ( pharmaceutical society of Britain vs boots)
- Quoting of the lowest possible price ( harvey vs facey)
- Tender
- Auction
- Controversy - if advertisement
E contract
- Contractual obligation between offeror and offered in electronic market
- Sec 4 of IT ACT- legal recognition
Sec 10A- Valid and enforceable
- Types
- Emails - trimex international vs Vedanta ltd
- e commerce
- agreements
A. Shrink wrap agreement- terms and conditions , usually license agreement along with software
B. Click wrap agreement- usually found in installation process of software
C. Browse wrap agreement- accept the material available on website - Sign - digital signature
- Second schedule of IT act, documents which cannot be executed in digital form - power of attorney, will, sale deed of immovable property
- No special remedies for breach– same as contracts
Specific offer vs general offer
2(a)
- Specific person vs world at large
- Concrete terms vs lesser
- Communication of acceptance vs performance railway timetable
General offer- most coomon example id reward for lost goods. But knowledge of such offer must exist before to consider such performance as acceptance. LALMAN SHUKLA vs GAURI DUTT
controversy exists whether ad I20 Or GO
CARLIL VS CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL-
1. Advertisement had elements of a unilateral offer
2 no need of communication of acceptance before performance
Revocation of general offer offer, same publicity as the original general offer
Crieria for special conditions in offer
- Specifically communicated
- Clearly written
- Notice of existence, even if other language
- Not bound if not = public policy ( lillywhite vs munnuswami)
- Should be given at timr of contract, not afterwards
Henderson vs stevenson - behind
Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified
- Sec 2(b)
- . Sec 7 - acceptance must be absolute and unqualified
ABSOLUTE
- No room for doubt
- KILLBURN ENGG LTD vs ONGC - 3 components,- absoluteness, commitment, communication
UNQUALIFIED
1 unconditional in its original form
2. When acceptor puts in new condition - not a valid acceptance
2. Hyde vs wrench. - counter offer, which only if accepted by original offeror
Until A and U - negotiation has not passesd and no legal obligation comes into play
Modes of revocation
Sec 6 1. By notice 2. Lapse of specified time 3. Failure to accept a condition precedent 4 death and insanity 5. Counter offer 6. If not in mode prescribed
Performance of condition is an acceptance of offer
- Sec 3 and 4 - importance and when A is complete
- Benifit of the offeror. Choose to waive.
- Unilateral and genreal offer such waiver is presumed
Sec 8 - Unilateral offer - gauged from the action of the promisee- HINDUSTAN iNSURANCE COMPANY vs SHYAM SUNDER - cheque and proposal form. Company enchashes check but no reply
Encashment = acceptance - General offer -
Lalman shukla vs gauri DUTT
Carlil vs carbolic smokeball - no need of acceptance but to fulfill conditions
Mere silence not acceptance
- Sec 2(b), sec 3, sec 4
- Even if he made up his mind , not a valid acceptance unless some external manifestation
BRODGEN VS METROPOLITAN RAILWAY - Silence cannot be prescribed as a mode of acceptance
FELTHOUSE vs BINDLEY - i consider the horse mine if I don’t here from you
Oferee- great deal of inconvenience,
Acceptance can given only by person who has knowledge of the offer. 2 case laws
- 2(b), sec 4
- Lalman shukla vs gauridutt- only when it comes to the knowledge of acceptor
- Williams vs carwardine - knowledge of offer /proposal important. Not motive
C husband killer. Knew of offer. One day bet her. Revenge
Agreement made by minor. 9 points regarding his position
- Sec 10 - competency of party. Sec 11 - one criteria for being competent- NOT a minor
- Indian majority act - 18 yrs. Guardian 21 years
- Void abinito– no maturity to understand legal implications.
- Clearly laid down in MOHIRIBIBI vs DHARMODAS - money lend and mortgage
- Position of minor -
Sec 64 - restoration from voidable contract
Sec 65- restoration from void contact
Sec 68- claim reimbursement from property for any necessities. But not personally liable
- Cannot ratify an contrcat on reaching maturity.
- Cannot be shareholder
- cannot be a partner. But can be admitted to the benefits of partnership
- no estoppel against minor for setting up defence of infancy though he might have induced
- sec 26 of NI act - draw, endorse, deliver negotiate — so as to bind all parties but himself
- contract of agency - cannot be principal, but no restriction in being - Only sheild not sword. DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE RESTITUTION- Retrieved if it can be traced out of his hands. Will not apply when infant obtained cash instead of goods
Sec 33 of specific relief act
Insanity
- Sec 12
- Sound mind - understanding and forming judgement
- Idiot - no faculty to think - void. Lunatic - lucid internvals
- Bop- whoever alleges it
- Exceptions - sec 65- restore, sec 68- necessities supplied,, mere oldage not sufficient
Inadeuacy of consideration is immaterial
- Sec 2(d)
- Sec 25 - a without c is void. Exp 2- inadeuacy will not invalidate . EX NUNDO PACTO NON ORITUR ACTIO
- Sir anson- courts donot sit to make bargain. Need not be adequate. Some value
Rationale - duty of party to bargain. Courts - enforce that bargain - Bolton vs maddens - if with free consent. Court will not go into adequacy
- Peppercorn theory - doesn’t have to be equivalence as long as reciprocal set.
- Thomas vs Thomas - annual payment of 1 pound for living in a house considered valid
- Illustration - sell for rs 10- worth 1000. Free consent
If A says no free consent- then inadeuacy one of the criteria that court will consider to check validity of contrcat
Consideration should not be illusory
Unsubstantial,vague or purely moral obligation
White vs bluett - father gave him money not to bore him with his complaints
Kulashekhara Perumal vs pathakutty - c means something not only which the parties regard as something with value , but also the court. But the courts have been very liberal with its interpretation