21/12/2022

There is no general offers definition.

Cases that are connected with general offer:
Carlil V. Carbolic, 
Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Datt,
and Harbhajan Lal versus Haricharan Lal.
these are important cases.
In commercial transaction it is presumed that it is a
commercial and it is presumed that there is intention of
contract and it becomes legally bound.
Statement kidding is not contract.
Balfour v. Balfour (1919)
The 1919 case of Balfour v. Balfour was the
foundation for the contract law as it gave birth to
the purpose behind the creation of the legal
reaction theory in contract law. Legal reaction
theory means that one lawful act will be
responsible for a subsequent legal act to take
place. Lord Justice Atkin observed that
agreements that are made between a husband
and his wife, specifically personal family
relationships, to provide maintenance costs,
and other related capitals are generally not
categorized as contracts because in general,
the parties to the agreement do not intend to
enter into an agreement that should be attending
legal ends. Therefore, a contract cannot be
enforceable by nature if the parties to the same
do not intend to create legal relations with each
other
Jones v Padavatton [1968] is a leading English
decision on contract law. The decision demonstrates
how domestic agreements, such as in between a
mother and daughter, are presumed not to be legally
binding unless there is clear intention.
A mother, Mrs Violet Lalgee Jones, agreed with her
daughter, Mrs Ruby Padavatton, that if she would give
up her secretary job at the Indian embassy in
Washington DC and study for the bar in England, the
mother would pay maintenance (from Trinidad, East
Indian descent). The mother gave monthly payments of
42 pounds and then bought a London house (the
daughter moved out of a one-room flat in Acton to 181
Highbury Quadrant, Highbury) which she lived in and
rented out. Then they had a quarrel while Mrs
Padavatton was still completing her bar exams at
Lincoln's Inn. The mother brought an action for
possession of the house. The daughter argued there
was a binding contract that she could stay.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------
Importance of Intention in contract
Introduction
An offer plus an acceptance to the offer makes
an agreement. But not all agreements are
contracts. An agreement must be enforceable by
law to make it a contract. An agreement is
eligible to be enforceable by law when the
following factors are satisfied:

1. Intention to create a legal relationship

between the parties;
2. Lawful consideration and lawful object;
 3. Capacity to contract;
4. Free consent;
5. The agreement is not declared void or
illegal;
6. Certainty of meaning;
7. Possibility of performance of an
agreement;
8. Other necessary legal formalities.

Intention to create a legal relationship

When two or more parties enter into a contract,
one of the essential elements is that the parties
should have an intention to create a legal
relationship between themselves. An agreement
will never reach a stage of a contract if there is
no intention to create a legal relationship
between the parties. So, for an agreement to
become a contract, it is imperative that the
parties who are entering into the contract must
have an intention to create a legal relationship
with each other. The intention should be such
that if any of the parties do not perform their
obligations then the other party can initiate legal
proceedings against the defaulting party.
 
The Indian Contracts Act 1872 does not have any
express provision to define the concept of
‘intention to create legal relationships’ between
the parties. But over the years there have been
several national and international precedents
wherein it was held that to create a binding
effect over a contract, parties must have an
intention to create a legal relationship.
Importance of the intention in creating a legal
relationship
The material aspects that govern the concept of
intention is:  

1. The parties cannot sue each other in the

absence of intention.
2. If the intention to create legal relations is
absent then the contract is a mere promise.
3. The contract will not have a binding
effect if there is no intention to create legal
relations.

In Balfour vs. Balfour (1919), the principle of

intention to create contractual relation was
explained by Lord Atkin as: ‘Not all agreement
between the parties results in a contract because
their meaning is not termed according to law. In
these circumstances, nobody can suggest
whether there is a binding contract or not and
one of the most common forms of such
agreement is the agreement between a husband
and a wife or an agreement within the family.
This type of agreement can never fall within the
ambit of a contract even though there is a
consideration as there is no intention between
the parties to bear legal consequences.’
The sources of contract law have laid down two
tests to determine the existence of an intention
to create legal relation
 1. Objective Test – In this, the court will
form an opinion based on how a reasonable
person would think, the type of
circumstances at that time, and what was
the intention of the parties.
2. Rebuttable presumption – In several
cases such as family/social agreements the
court has a presumption regarding the
intention to create a legal relationship, but
this can be rebutted on the basis of facts
and circumstances.

Test of Objectivity
The test of contractual relations should always be
objective and not subjective. In the objectivity
test, it doesn’t matter what parties intend but
what a reasonable man at the time creating a
contract will think. The court will look at the
perspective of a reasonable man and not the
intent of the parties.
Simpkins v. Pays (1955)

In Simpkins v. Pays (1955), a mother, her

daughter and their paying guest decided to
participate in crossword puzzles, all in the name
of the mother. The expenses for the same were
contributed by all the women at that time,
without any obligations. They won one of the
games, but the mother was reluctant to share
the prize money with her daughter and the
paying guest. The Court, in this case, held that
any prudent man considering this situation would
have thought that there must be an intention to
share the prize. Therefore, the mother was
bound to share the prize with the daughter and
the paying guest.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)
In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
(1893), Defendant published an advertisement
stating that a 100 pounds reward will be paid by
the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person
who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza
colds or any diseases caused by catching a cold
after having used the Carbolic Smoke Ball three
times daily for two weeks. On seeing this
advertisement, Mrs. Carlil, the Plaintiff went and
bought at the chemist’s one of the smoke balls.
She used it three times daily for two weeks
according to the prescribed direction supplied.
However, she contracted influenza. Mr. Carlil
filed an action to recover the 100 pounds. The
trial judge passed an order in favour of  Mrs.
Carlil.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company appealed to
the Court of Appeal and the appeal was
dismissed on the ground that the offer in the
advertisement coupled with the performance by
the plaintiff of the conditions specified therein
created a valid contract on the part of the
defendants to pay the 100 pounds mentioned in
the advertisement and the plaintiff was entitled
to recover the 100 pounds.
Lord Justice Bowen was of the view that,
although the offer is made to all the world, the
contract is made with that limited portion of the
public who come forward to accept the offer, as
any prudent man who reads the advertisement
would presume that there is an intention to
create a contract with the company.
Let us now look into some instances wherein the
intention of the parties plays a crucial role in
determining the existence of a contract.  
 
Family or social agreements
In cases of family or social agreements, the
intention of the parties is evaluated according to
the terms of the agreement and the
circumstances in which the agreement was
entered into. In these types of agreements, the
Court has to decide whether there is an intention
to create a contractual relationship or not. Most
of the time, a family agreement or a social
agreement does not intend to create contractual
relations except in cases of separation or splitting
up.
Agreement between husband and wife 
Agreement between a husband and wife is an
example of family and social agreement.  Most of
the time an agreement between husband and
wife does form a binding contract. Let us now
discuss some landmark cases in this regard. 
Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

Brief facts
The defendant and his wife were enjoying their
leave in England. But due to some
circumstances, the defendant had to return to
Ceylon and he and his wife had to stay in
England for medical reasons. The defendant
agreed to pay some amount for probable
expenses. With time differences arose and their
relationship soured due to which the husband
stopped sending expenses to his wife. The wife
initiated legal proceedings against her husband
to enforce the agreement. 
Order of the Court 
The Court held that this agreement was purely
domestic and social and neither of the parties
was legally bound as there were no express
terms to create a legal relationship between the
parties.
But the agreement between husband and wife
does always depend upon the presumption;
sometimes it is rebutted depending on each
case’s facts.
Exceptions

Mcgregor v. McGregor (1888)

In Mcgregor v. Mcgregor 1888, a husband and
wife withdrew their complaints under an
agreement by which the husband promised to
pay her an allowance and she was to refrain from
pledging his credit. This agreement was held to
be a binding contract
Agreement between parent and child 
Agreement between parent and child is also an
example of family and social contract which is
presumed to be an example of social agreement
and does not have the effect of a binding
contract. Let us now discuss some landmark
cases in this regard. 
Jones v. Padavatton 1969

Brief Facts 
In Jones v. Padavatton 1969,  Padavatton, a
divorced woman, was living in Washington, USA,
with her son. She had a good job as an
accountant in the Indian Embassy.  Jones was
Padavatton’s mother who was living in Trinidad
and she wanted her daughter to leave the USA
and be a barrister in England and then return to
Trinidad. Jones promised to pay $200 per month
to her if she comes to Trinidad after becoming a
barrister from England. Padavatton agreed to do
this and Jones paid her bar tuition fees @ £42
per month.  Later, Jones proposed to purchase a
house where Padavatton and her son could live
and also let out leftover rooms to derive income
from tenants. But the differences grew between
Jones and Padavatton when she was not able to
complete her legal education within 5 years and
she also remarried during her education. Jones
cut down the allowances and also initiated legal
proceedings against Padavatton to evict her from
the house. The issue before the Court was
whether there was a contract between Jones and
Padavatton allowing possession of the house.
Order of the Court 
The Court, in this case, held that this is a family
arrangement that draws its essence from good
faith of the promise which is not made to form a
binding agreement. In the light of the same, it
was held that there was no intention to create a
contractual relationship between the parties.
Exception 
Although the agreement between the relatives is
an example of the social agreement in certain
cases it is rebutted on the basis of facts and
circumstances. 
Parker v. Clark  1969
Brief Facts
In  Parker v. Clark  1969, The Clarks were an
elderly married couple. Mrs. Parker was Mr.
Clark’s niece.  Mr. Clark suggested that she and
her husband move in together with them. Mr.
Parker supported the idea but expressed concern
that if they move in, they need to sell their
house. Mr. Clark wrote to Mr. Parker stating that
the Clarks will bequeath their home to Mrs.
Parker, that her daughter, the Parkers, and in
furtherance of the same, they sold the house and
moved in with Clarks. But, after some time this
started falling apart and the Parkers were denied
their share of the house. The Parkers initiated
legal proceedings for breach of contract.
Order of the Court 
It was held that since the action of the niece and
her husband were very serious and there was an
intention to create a legal relationship between
the parties. Hence, the Clarks cannot deny the
share to the Parkers.
Commercial agreement
The other presumption is that commercial
agreements are intended to create a legal
relationship between the parties.
It is generally presumed that whenever a
business transaction is involved, there is an
intention to create legal relations between
the parties.
Esso Petroleum v. Commissioners of Customs and
Excise 1976

Brief Facts
In Esso Petroleum v. Commissioners of Customs
and Excise (1976), A promotion campaign was
advertised by Esso Petroleum that a free coin
from the world cup collection coin will be given
on the purchase of four gallons of petrol by any
person. The issue that arose was whether there
was enough quantity of coins produced to be
given in resale and if so whether it will attract
tax liability.  
Order of the Court 
The Court held that the coins were offered in a
commercial context and thus there was an
intention to create a contractual relationship. In
this case, it was observed that coins were not
given in exchange for money therefore there was
an intention to create contractual relations but
there was no consideration involved.
Exception : Comfort letter 

Kleinwort Benson Ltd. versus Malaysia Mining

Corporation 1989 case

Brief Facts
In this case,  Malaysia Mining Corporation Metal
Limited, which was a fully owned subsidiary of
Malaysia Mining Corporation approached the
claimant bank Kleinwort Benso for a loan. Since
Malaysia Mining Corporation Metal Limited was a
new company, the bank approached Malaysia
Mining Corporation (Parent Company) to act as a
guarantor. MMC Bhd refused to be a guarantor
but instead handed a letter of comfort to the
bank in view that MMC Bhd ensures that their
subsidiaries are always in a good position.
Subsequently, MMC metal ran into bankruptcy
and the Bank initiated proceedings against MMC
Bhd to recover the loan based on a comfort
letter.
Order of the Court 
The Court held that there is no legal effect of a
comfort letter. It was clear when the MMC Bhd
 refused to be a guarantor that they did not
intend to be legally bound.
Conclusion 
In various judicial pronouncements, the court
was of the view that there should be an intention
to create a legal relationship between the
parties. This intention can either be presumed or
need to be proven with the help of facts and
circumstances. The position of intention is
different in common law and Indian law. In
common law intended to create a contract is an
essential part to form a binding contract and
consideration in a contract only has an
evidentiary factor. In Indian law, the scenario is
different, in India consideration is considered an
essential part of a contract, and the existence of
consideration proves intention to create legal
relations.
There is a thin line of difference between
commercial contracts and family/social
agreements. Therefore, due to this thin line of
difference, it will be difficult for Indian courts to
determine the existence of an intention to create
legal relations as even in family contracts there
will be an essence of consideration that will
overlook the existence of intention
—-----------------------------
Offer and Acceptance Under
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Introduction
Contracts play an important role in our everyday life ranging from insurance

policies to employment contracts. In Fact, we enter into contracts even without

thinking, for example, while buying a movie ticket or downloading an app. The

contract is oral or written agreements between two or more parties. Parties

entering into a contract might include individual people, companies, non-profits or

government agencies. The whole process of entering into a contract starts with an

offer by one party, an acceptance by another party, and an exchange of

consideration (something of value). Let us take a look at the aspect of offer and

acceptance.  

Proposal or offer
 The entire process of entering into a contract begins with the proposal or
an offer made by one party to another. The proposal must be accepted to
enter into an agreement.
 According to the Indian Contract Act 1872, proposal is defined in Section
2(a)  as “when one person will signify to another person his willingness to
do or not do something (abstain) with a view to obtain the assent of such
person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal or an
offer.”

Features of a valid offer

The person making the offer/proposal is referred to as the “promiser” or the

“offeror”. And the person who accepts an offer is referred to as “promisee” or the

“acceptor”.
  The offeror must express his willingness to do or abstain from doing an
act. Only willingness is not adequate. Or just an urge to do something or
not to do anything will not be an offer.
 An offer can either be positive or negative. It can be a promise to do some
act, and can also be a promise to abstain from doing any act/service. Both
are valid offers.

The element of a valid offer

Here are some essentials which make the offer valid

There must be two parties 

There have to be at least two parties a person making the proposal and the other

person agreeing to it. All the persons are included i.e, Legal persons as well as

artificial persons.

Every proposal must be communicated

Communication of the proposal is mandatory. An offer is valid if it is conveyed to

the offeree. The communication can either be express or implied. It can be

communicated by terms such as word of mouth, messenger, telegram, etc. Section

4 of the Indian Contract Act says that the communication of a proposal is complete

when it comes to the awareness of the person to whom it is made.

Example
 ‘A’ proposes, to sell a car to ‘B’ at a certain price. Once ‘B’ receives the letter, the

proposal communication is complete.

It must create Legal Relations

An offer must be such that when accepted it will result in a valid contract. A mere

social invitation cannot be regarded as an offer, because if such an invitation is

accepted it will not give rise to any legal relationship.

Example
‘A’ invited ‘B’ to dinner and ‘B’ accepted the invitation. It is a mere social invitation.

And ‘A’ will not be liable if he fails to provide dinner to B.

It must be certain and definite

The terms of the offer must be certain and clear in order to create a valid contract,

it must not be ambiguous.

It may be specific or general

 The specific offer is an offer that is accepted by any specific or particular person or

by any group to whom it is made. Whereas, The general offers are accepted by any

person.

Types of Offer
An offer can be of many types, ranging across the spectrum. There are

basically 7 kinds of offers:

 Express offer  

 Implied offer 

 General offer 

 Specific Offer 
  Cross Offer 

 Counter Offer 

 Standing Offer 

Express offer and Implied offer

Section 9 of The ICA defines both of them as: In so far as the proposal or

acceptance of any promise is made in words, the promise is said to be

express. In so far as such a proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than

in words, the promise is said to be implied.

Therefore, any offer that is made with words, it may be regarded as express.

Any promise that is made otherwise than in words is implied. A bid at an

auction is an example of an Implied offer. A case in this regard is Upton-on-

Servern RDC v. Powell, wherein the defendant called a fire brigade

assuming that those services would be free to him, however it was found

that his Farm did not come under that of Upton. The court held that the truth

of the matter is that the Defendant wanted the services of Upton, he asked

for the services of Upton and in response to that they offered their services

and they were rendered on an implied promise to pay for them.

In Ramji Dayawala & Sons (p) Ltd v. Invest Import, a case between an

Indian and Yugoslavian party the notice for revocation of an arbitration

clause in the contract between the parties was made by the Indian party, to

which the other party gave no reply. It was held that this would amount to

an implied acceptance i.e.- the arbitration clause was deleted from the

contract, and a suit would lie in the court of law.  Similarly entering into an

omnibus also amounts to implied acceptance, same as consuming edibles at

a self-service restaurant. Therefore in simpler terms a contract that is

entered into because of actions on the offerors part, may be referred to as an

implied offer, any contract entered into otherwise is an express offer.

General Offer
A General Offer is an offer that is made to the world at large. The genesis of

a General Offer came about from the Landmark case of Carlill v. Carbolic

Smoke Ball Co. A company by the name Carbolic Smoke Ball offered

through an Advertisement to pay 100 Pounds to anyone who would contract

increasing epidemic Influenza, colds or any disease caused by cold after

taking its Medicine according to the prescribed instructions. It was also added

that 1000 Pounds have been deposited in Alliance bank showing our sincerity

in the matter. One customer Mrs Carlill used the medicine and still contracted

Influenza and hence sued the company for the reward. The Defendants gave

the argument that the offer was not made with an intention to enter into a

legally binding agreement, rather was only to Puff the sales of the company.

Moreover, they also contended that an offer needs to be made to a specific

person, and here the offer was not to any specific person and hence they are

not obliged to the Plaintiff. 

Setting aside the arguments of the Defendant, the bench stated that in cases

of such offers i.e- general offers, there is no need for communication of

acceptance, anyone who performs the conditions of the contract is said to

have communicated his/her acceptance, and moreover, the money deposited

by the Defendant in Alliance Bank clearly shows that they intended to create

a legally binding relationship. Hence the Plaintiff was awarded with the

amount. An Indian authority in this regard is Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt,

wherein a servant was sent by his master to trace his missing nephew. In the

meanwhile, he also announced a reward for anyone finding his nephew, this

in itself is an example of an offer that is made to the world at large and

hence a General Offer.

Valid acceptance based on fulfillment of condition

This concept has been given statutory authority under section 8 of the ICA:

Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any

consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal,

is an acceptance of the proposal. 

This section was applied by YEARS CJ of Allahabad high court in the case of

Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal, wherein the father of a young boy who

ran from home issued a pamphlet for a reward for anyone who would find

him. The Plaintiff found him at the railway station and sent a Telegram to his

father. The Court held that the handbill was an offer that was made to the

world at large and anyone who fulfilled the conditions is deemed to have

accepted it. In State of Bihar v. Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical

Works LTD, the Patna HC held that where the acceptance consists of an act,

e.g- dispatching some goods, the rule that there shall be no communication

of acceptance will come into play. 

General offer of continuing nature

When a general offer is of continuing nature, like it was in a carbolic smoke

ball case, it can be accepted by a number of people till it is retracted.

However, when a similar offer requires information regarding a missing

thing, it is closed as soon as the first information comes in. 

Specific Offer
A Specific offer is an offer that is made to a specific or ascertained person,

this type of offer can only be accepted by the person to whom it is made.

This concept was seen briefly in the case of Boulton v. Jones, wherein the

Plaintiff had taken the business of one Brocklehurst, the defendant used to

have business with Brocklehurst and not knowing about the change in

ownership of business, sent him an order for certain goods. The Defendant

came to know about the change only after receiving an invoice, at which

point he had already consumed the goods. The Defendant refused to pay the

price, as he had a set off against the original owner, for which the plaintiff

sued him.

The Judges gave a unanimous judgement holding the defendant not liable.

Pollock CB held that the rule of law is clear, if you intend to contract with A,

B cannot substitute himself as A without your consent and to your

disadvantage. It was also held that whenever a person makes a contract with

a specific personality, a specific party, so to say, for writing a book, for

painting a picture or for any personal service or if there is any set off due

from any party, no one has the authority to come in and maintain that he is

the party contracted with. 

Cross Offer
When two parties make an identical offer to each other, in ignorance to each

other’s offer, they are said to make cross offers. Cross offers are not valid

offers. For example- if A makes an offer to sell his car for 7 lakhs to B and B

in ignorance of that makes an offer to buy the same car for 7 Lakhs, they are

said to make a cross offer, and there is no acceptance in this case, hence it

cannot be a mutual acceptance. 

Basic essentials of a cross offer 
1. Same offer to one another- When the offeror makes an offer to the

offeree and the offeree without prior knowledge makes the same

offer to the offeror, then both the object and the party remain the

same.

2. Offer must be made in ignorance of each other- The two parties

must make their offer in ignorance of each other.

An important case in this aspect is the English case of Tinn v. Hoffman, the

defendant wrote to the complainant an offer to sell him 800 tons of iron at

69s per ton, at the same time the complainant also wrote to the defendant

an offer to buy the iron at similar terms. The issue in this case was that, was

there any contract between the parties, and would simultaneous offers be a

valid acceptance. The court held that these were cross offers that were made

simultaneously without knowledge of one another and would not bind the

parties. 

Here it is imperative to deduce that for a valid contract to be formed there

needs to be an offer and acceptance of the same, whereas in a cross offer

there is no acceptance, but only simultaneous offers being and therefore a

cross offer will not lead to the formation of a contract. 

Counter offer
When the offeree offers a qualified acceptance of the offer subject to

modifications and variations in terms of the original offer, he is said to have

made a counter offer. A counter offer is a rejection of the original offer. An

example of this would be if A offers B a car for 10 Lakhs, B agrees to buy for
8 Lakhs, this amounts to a counter offer and it would mean a rejection of the

original offer. Later on, if B agrees to buy for 10 Lakhs, A may refuse. Sir

Jenkins CJ in Haji Mohd Haji Jiva v. Spinner, held that any departure from

original offer vitiates acceptance. In other words, an acceptance with a

variation is not acceptance, it is simply a counter proposal which must be

accepted by the original offeror, for it to formulate into a contract.

The Bombay High court gave this decision based upon the landmark

judgement of Hyde v. Wrench, in which an offer to sell a farm for 1000

Pounds was rejected by the Plaintiff, who offered 950 for it. Subsequently the

Plaintiff gave an acceptance to the original offer. Holding that the Defendant

was not bound by a contract, the court said that the Plaintiff accepted the

original offer of buying the farm at the price of 1000 pounds, it would have

been a completely valid contract , however he gave a counter proposal to it,

thus rejecting the original offer. 

Partial Acceptance
Counter offer also includes within its contours Partial acceptance, meaning

that a party to the contract cannot agree to those conditions of the

agreement that favour him and reject the rest, the acceptance should be of

the complete agreement i.e.- all its parts. In Ramanbhai M. Nilkanth v.

Ghashiram Ladliprasad, the plaintiff made an application for certain shares

in a company with the underlying condition that he would be made the

cashier in its new branch. The Company did not comply with this and hence

the suit. The court held that the Petitioners application for shares was

condition on him being made the cashier and that he would have never

applied for the shares had there been no such condition. 

Acceptance of a counter proposal
In Hargopal v. People’s Bank of Northern India LTD, an application for

shares was made on a conditional undertaking by the bank that the applicant

would be made the director of the new branch. The shares were allotted to

him without fulfilling the condition. The applicant did not say anything and

took his dividends, a subsequent suit by him failed as the court held that he

through his conduct had waived the condition. When a counter proposal is

accepted the contract arises in terms of the counter proposal and not

in terms of the original contract.  

Standing offer 
An Offer which remains open for acceptance over a period of time is called a

standing offer. Tenders that are invited for supply of goods is a kind of

Standing Offer. In Perclval Ltd. V. London County Council Asylums and

Mental deficiency Committee, the Plaintiff advertised for tenders for

supply of goods. The defendant took the tender in which he had to supply to

the company various special articles for a period of 12 months. In-between

this the Defendant didn’t supply for a particular consignment. The Court held

that the Tender was a standing offer that was to be converted into a series of

contracts by the subsequent acts of the company and that an order

prevented pro tanto the possibility of revocation, hence the company

succeeded in an action for breach of contract. 

Difference between an offer and Invitation to offer

Although Invitation to Offer is not a type of offer per se, it is imperative to

distinguish both to even construe what an actual offer is. An invitation to

offer is an offer to negotiate, an offer to receive offers, offers to chauffeur.

An offer is a final expression of willingness to get into a contract upon those

following terms. The concept of Invitation to offer was explained in the Privy

Council case of Harvey v. Facey, the Plaintiffs in this asked two questions

from the defendant i.e.- Would you sell me your Bumper Hall pen , telegram

me the lowest price? , the Defendant only gave the answer to the latter

question , post which he refused to sell. The Court held that the defendant

was not to sell as he had only answered the second question and reserved

the same for his first question. Thus, this clearly shows the distinction

between an offer and invitation to offer.

In Adikanda Biswal v. Bhubaneswar Development Authority, when a

development authority made an announcement for allotment of plots on first

come first serve basis on payment of full consideration. An application

against this with full consideration was only considered to be an offer, as the

Development authority only gave an invitation to offer, and the offer can only

be formalized into a contract when it is accepted by the development

authority. 

Rules regarding display of goods in shops

In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists

Southern Ltd., lord GODDARD CJ, said that it would be wrong to say that a

shopkeeper intends to sell everything that is displayed in his shop. Meaning

that the customer makes an offer, to which the shopkeeper has the

discretion to accept or deny. The shopkeeper may say that he doesn’t have

enough stock of that good and therefore may not sell. Similarly, a bankers

catalogue of charges is also not an offer, the auction held by a person is also

only an invitation to offer and he may not be liable for the transportation
 costs that people may have to pay to come to the place of auction, in case he

cancels at the end moment.

Conclusion 
The Indian Contract act doesn’t specifically mention the different types of

offers, but as ours is a common law country, we develop law from the

decisions held by Indian and British courts. As an offer is the first step in the

formulation of a contract, it is essential to distinguish what type of offer has

been made by the offeror, as different types of offers have different types of

legal rules being applied to them. It is also imperative to distinguish an offer

and an invitation to offer, to avoid unwanted transactions. 

Lapses and revocation of an offer 

 An offer lapses after a defined or reasonable time.
 An offer lapse by not being accepted in the specified mode
 An offer lapses by rejection. 
 An offer lapses by the offeror or the offeror’s death or insanity until
acceptance.
 An offer lapses by revocation before acceptance.
 An offer lapses by subsequent illegality or destruction of the subject
matter.

When communication is complete

 Communication of offer (section 4)

The communication of the offer is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the

person to whom it is made.

Time of revocation of an offer

  Revocation of the offer (Section 4)

A proposal can be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance

is complete as against the proposer but not afterward.

Revocation of the offer by the offeror

The offeror can withdraw his offer before it is accepted “the bidder can withdraw

(revoke) his offer at an auction sale before being accepted by any auctioneer using

any of the customary methods.

Example
‘A’ agreed to sell the property to ‘B’ by a written document which stated “this offer

to be left over until Friday 9 AM”. on Thursday ‘A’ made a contract to sell the

property to ‘C’. ‘B’ heard of this from ‘X’ and on Friday 7 AM he delivered to ‘A’

acceptance of his offer. Held ‘B’ could not accept A’s offer after he knew it had been

revoked by the sale of the property to C. 

Acceptance
The Indian Contract Act 1872 defines acceptance in Section 2 (b) as “When the

person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said

to be accepted. Thus the proposal when accepted becomes a promise.” An offer can

be revoked before it is accepted.

As specified in the definition, if the offer is accepted unconditionally by the offeree

to whom the request is made, it will amount to acceptance. When the offer is

accepted it becomes a promise.

Example
‘A’ offer to buy B’s house for rupees 40 lacs and ‘B’ accepts such an offer. Now, it

has become a promise.

When an offer is accepted and it becomes promise it also becomes irrevocable. No

legal obligation created by an offer.

Types of Acceptance
 Expressed Acceptance
If the acceptance is written or oral, it becomes an Expressed Acceptance.

Example
‘A’ offers to sell his phone to ‘B’ over an email. ‘B’ respond to that email saying he

accepts the offer to buy.

 Implied Acceptance
If the acceptance is shown by conduct, It thus becomes an Implied acceptance.

Example
The Arts Museum holds an auction to sell a historical book to collect charity funds.

In the media, they advertise the same. This says that a Mere Invitation to an Offer

as per Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The invitees offer for the same. Offer is expressed orally, so the offer to buy is an

Express Offer, but by striking the hammer thrice the final call is made by the

auctioneer. This is called Implied Acceptance.

 Conditional Acceptance
A conditional acceptance also referred to as an eligible acceptance, occurs when a

person to whom an offer has been made tells the offeror that he or she is willing to

accept the offer provided that certain changes are made to the condition of the

offer. This form of acceptance operates as a counter-offer. The original offeror must

consider a counter-offer before a contract can be established between the parties.

Legal Rules and Conditions for Acceptance

 Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified 
The offeree’s approval cannot be conditional.For example, ‘A’ wants to sell her car

to ‘B’ for Rs 2 lakh, ‘B’ can’t come back and says that she accepts the offer but will

buy the same for Rs. 1 lakh.

 Acceptance must be told to the offeror

If the acceptor just accepts the offer in his head and he does not mention the same

to the offeror, it can not be called an Acceptance, whether in an express manner or

an implied manner.

 Acceptance must be recommended in the

following mode
Acceptance is sometimes required in a prescribed/specified communication mode.

 In a reasonable amount of time, the acceptance

is given
It’s very rare that an offer is always to get acceptance at any time and at all times.

Therefore, the offer defines a time limit. If it does not, it should not be

acknowledged forever.

Mere silence is not acceptance

If the offeree fails to respond to an offer made to him, his silence can not be

confused with acceptance. But, there is an exception to this rule. It is stated that,

within 3 weeks of the date on which the offer is made, the non-acceptance shall be

communicated to the offeror. Otherwise, the silence shall be communicated as

acceptance.

When communication is complete?

 Communication of acceptance (Section 4)

Communication of acceptance is complete when it is put in the course of

transmission to him as to be out of the power of the acceptor to withdraw the same

and when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.

Time of revocation of acceptance

An acceptance may be revoked at any time, but not afterward, before the

communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor.

Conclusion
Examination of offer and acceptance is a standard contract law method used to

assess whether a two-party arrangement exists. An offer is a sign of their

willingness to agree on certain terms from one person to another. If there is an

express or implied agreement, a contract will then be formed. A contract is said to

come into being when the acceptance of an offer has been told to the offeror by the

offeree. 

The communication of the offer shall be complete when it comes to the knowledge

of the person to whom the offer is made and the communication of the acceptance

shall be complete when the acceptance is put in a course of transmission to the

offeror. Therefore, offer and acceptance are the essential elements of a contract

and in either case, it should be done on the basis of one’s free will and with the

intention of concluding a legally binding agreement.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals,

and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing

legal content.

Acceptance in contract
Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35, is the
leading English contract law case on the rule that one
cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one's
offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a
rule that "silence cannot amount to acceptance"
Paul Felthouse was a builder who lived in London. He wanted to buy a horse from his nephew,
John Felthouse. After a letter from the nephew concerning a discussion about buying the horse,
the uncle replied saying
"If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30.15s."
The nephew did not reply. He was busy at auctions on his farm in Tamworth. He told the man
running the auctions, William Bindley, not to sell the horse. But by accident, Bindley did. Uncle
Felthouse then sued Bindley in the tort of conversion - using someone else's property
inconsistently with their rights. But for the Uncle to show the horse was his property, he had to
show there was a valid contract. Bindley argued there was not, since the nephew had never
communicated his acceptance of the uncle's offer.
 
 
Where consideration is defined
Consideration is defined in 2D
 
 where it is mentioned that only those agreements will
be contract which a considerable enforceable by law
 it is in section 10
10. What agreements are contracts.—All agreements
are contracts if they are made by the free consent of
parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration
and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void. Nothing herein contained shall
affect any law in force in 1 [India] and not hereby
expressly repealed by the A.O. 1950, for “the
Provinces”. 13 by which any contract is required to be
made in writing1 or in the presence of witnesses, or any
law relating to the registration of documents
 where lawful consideration is defined
 lawful consideration is defined in Section 23
23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and
what not.—The consideration or object of an agreement
is lawful, unless— it is forbidden by law4 ; or is of such a
nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of
any law; or is fraudulent ; or involves or implies, injury to
the person or property of another; or the Court regards it
as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these
cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is
said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object
or consideration is unlawful is void. 
Illustrations (a) A agrees to sell his house to B for 10,000 rupees. Here B‟s promise
to pay the sum of 10,000 rupees is the consideration for A‟s promise to sell the
house, and A‟s promise to sell the house is the consideration for B‟s promise to pay
the 10,000 rupees. These are lawful considerations. 1. The original words „British
India” have successively been amended by the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read
as above. 2. Paragraph 2, ins. by the A.O. 1937, and as amended by the A. O. 1948
was Rep. by the A. O. 1950. 3. The second Illustration to s. 21 rep. by Act 24 of
1917, s. 3 and Sch. II. 4. See ss. 26, 27, 28 and 30, infra. 17 (b) A promises to pay B
1,000 rupees at the end of six months, if C, who owes that sum to B, fails to pay it. B
promises to grant time to C accordingly. Here, the promise of each party is the
consideration for the promise of the other party, and they are lawful considerations.
(c) A promises, for a certain sum paid to him by B, to make good to B the value of his
ship if it is wrecked on a certain voyage. Here, A‟s promise is the consideration for
B‟s payment and B‟s payment is the consideration for A‟s promise, and these are
lawful considerations. (d) A promises to maintain B‟s child, and B promises to pay A
1,000 rupees yearly for the purpose. Here, the promise of each party is the
consideration for the promise of the other party. They are lawful considerations. (e)
A, B and C enter into an agreement for the division among them of gains acquired or
to be acquired, by them by fraud. The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful. (f)
A promises to obtain for B an employment in the public service and B promises to
pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, as the consideration for it is unlawful.
(g) A, being agent for a landed proprietor, agrees for money, without the knowledge
of his principal, to obtain for B a lease of land belonging to his principal. The
agreement between A and B is void. as it implies a fraud by concealment, by A, on
his principal. (h) A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against
B for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the things taken. The
agreement is void, as its object is unlawful. (i) A‟s estate is sold for arrears of
revenue under the provisions of an Act of the Legislature, by which the defaulter is
prohibited from purchasing the estate. B, upon an understanding with A, becomes
the purchaser, and agrees to convey the estate to A upon receiving from him the
price which B has paid. The agreement is void, as it renders the transaction, in
effect, a purchase by the defaulter, and would so defeat the object of the law. (j) A,
who is B‟s mukhtar, promises to exercise his influence, as such, with B in favour of
C, and C promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, because it is
immoral. (k) A agrees to let her daughter to hire to B for concubinage. The
agreement is void, because it is immoral, though the letting may not be punishable
under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

 where it is mentioned that if lawful consideration is not

there then it shall be void agreement
 it is mentioned in section 24
Agreement void, if considerations and objects
unlawful in part.—If any part of a single
consideration for one or more objects, or any one or
any part of any one of several considerations for a
single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.
 Illustration A promises to superintend, on behalf of B, a legal
manufacture of indigo, and an illegal traffic in other articles. B promises
to pay to A a salary of 10,000 rupees a year. The agreement is void, the
object of A‟s promise, and the consideration for B‟s promise, being in
part unlawful

 where it is written that if there is no consideration then it

would be void agreement 
it is in section 25
Consideration can be for past, present or future 
When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any
other person has done or abstained from doing, or does
or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain
from doing, something, such act or abstinence or
promise is called a consideration for the promise; (e)
Every p 
Consideration is done on the Desire of promissor
 consideration can be given by promisee or any other
person
Is privity of consideration applicable in India?
But her action/suit was not accepted by the court and it was held that English
doctrine of Privity of Consideration is not applicable in India due to section 2D. It
means that under Indian Law a person may not have himself given any consideration
but he can enforce the contract if he is a party to the contract
—-----------------------------
22/12/2022
Dalrymple v Dalrymple Summary
 
The judge referred to the opinions of Scottish legal academics. These
opinions stated that the deliberate consent of the parties to enter into
an agreement to take one another as husband and wife was
sufficient to constitute a legal marriage despite the absence of a
clergyman.
—--------------------------------------
Merritt v Merritt [1970] is an English contract law case, on the matter
of creating legal relations. While under the principles laid out in Balfour
v Balfour, domestic agreements between spouses are rarely legally
enforceable, this principle was rebutted where two spouses who formed
an agreement over their matrimonial home were not on good terms.

Mr Merritt and his wife jointly owned a house. Mr Merritt left to live with
another woman. They made an agreement (signed) that Mr Merritt would
pay Mrs Merritt a £40 monthly sum, and eventually transfer the house to
her, if Mrs Merritt kept up the monthly mortgage payments. When the
mortgage was paid Mr Merritt refused to transfer the house.

Parker v Clark [1960] 1 WLR 286 is an English contract law case concerning reliance
and creation of legal relations in a social type of agreement.
The Clarks, an elderly couple, invited their niece and her husband, the Parkers to live with them.
The Parkers said they would like to, but it would mean they would have to sell their own house.
The Clarks assured the Parkers that in doing so they would leave a share of the clark house to
Mrs Parker, and her daughter, in their will. The Parkers sold their house, lent the balance of the
money to their daughter who in turn bought a flat. Then the Parkers moved in. But they fell out.
The Clarks asked them to leave, and the Parkers sued for breach of contract.
 
 
Devlin J held that the Clarks were liable for damages to the Parkers given that the Parkers had
relied to their detriment on the assurance of the Clarks that they would have a place to stay.

Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal : In this case, the SC held

that intention to create a legal relationship is essential in order to create a
contract

—------------------------------
Section number 25
 where it is mentioned that without consideration agreement will be void?
 it is in section 25.

Where is mentioned definition of void agreement

 it is in 2 (g)

Blackstone defined consideration as “the recompense given by the party

contracting to the other”. Pollock took consideration to be “the price for which the
promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable”
 
25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered or is
a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred by
limitation law.—An agreement made without consideration is void, unless—
 
(1) it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being in force
for the registration of 1 [documents], and is made on account of natural love and
affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other ; or unless 
 
(2) it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already
voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the promisor was
legally compellable to do; or unless; 
 
(3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith,
or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in
part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the
limitation of suits. In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.
 
 Explanation 1.—Nothing in this section shall affect the validity, as between the
donor and donee, of any gift actually made. 
 
Explanation 2.—An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is
not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the inadequacy of the
consideration may be taken into account by the Court in determining the question
whether the consent of the promisor was freely given. 
 
Illustrations (a) A promises, for no consideration, to give to B Rs. 1,000. This is a void
agreement. (b) A, for natural love and affection, promises to give his son, B, Rs. 1,000. A
puts his promise to B into writing and registers it. This is a contract. (c) A finds B‟s purse and
gives it to him. B promises to give A Rs. 50. This is a contract. (d) A supports B‟s infant son.
B promises to pay A‟s expenses in so doing. This is a contract. (e) A owes B Rs. 1,000, but
the debt is barred by the Limitation Act. A signs a written promise to pay B Rs. 500 on
account of the debt. This is a contract. (f) A agrees to sell a horse worth Rs. 1,000 for Rs.
10. A‟s consent to the agreement was freely given. The agreement is a contract
notwithstanding the inadequacy of the consideration. (g) A agrees to sell a horse worth Rs.
1,000 for Rs. 10. A denies that his consent to the agreement was freely given. The
inadequacy of the consideration is a fact which the Court should take into account in
considering whether or not A‟s consent was freely given.
—--------------------
In the case of Rajlukhy Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee , the defendant
promised to pay his wife a certain amount every month as maintenance. The
promise was made in writing and the quarrels the husband and wife had were also
mentioned. A case was filed to recover the amount promised to be paid as
maintenance. However, the judge decided in favour of the defendant as although
the two were in a near relation, the court held that there was no natural love and
affection between them.
—--------------------
Consideration for past voluntary work is not considered in English law but it is
considered in Indian law 
How many explanations are there in section 25?
 there are two explanations.
What is mention in explanation 1?
 in explanation one is mentioned donation and gift.
 Privity of  consideration is not valid in India.  but  privity of contract is valid in
India.
The doctrine of privity of contract was firmly established in the case of
Tweddle v Atkinson. The Court held: no legal entitlement is conferred upon
the third party to an agreement and promisee cannot initiate any legal action unless
the consideration from the promise moved from him.
Dutton v Poole Case
A son made a contract with his father for his father to not cut down an oak woodland.
As consideration for this, the son would make a payment to his sister of £1000 once
she had married. The money gained from the woodland would have been paid to the
sister. The father died before the sister was married and the son subsequently
refused to pay his sister the money as was previously agreed, at the time of her
marriage. The sister sued her brother for the amount that was originally promised
between the father and son.
Judge Scroggs held that "apparent consideration of love and affection
from the father to his children [means] the consideration and promise to
the father may well extend to the children."
—---------------- 
In which case privity of consideration and privity of contract was
mentioned and both were accepted as valid in England? 
In 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co

Ltd
Dunlop made tyres. It did not want them sold cheaply but to maintain a standard resale price. It
agreed with its dealers (in this case, Dew & Co.) not to sell them below its recommended retail
price. It also bargained for dealers to get the same undertaking from their retailers (in this case,
Selfridge). If retailers did sell below the list price, they would have to pay £5 per tyre in liquidated
damages to Dunlop. Dunlop thus was the third party to a contract between Selfridge and Dew.
When Selfridge sold the tyres at below the agreed price, Dunlop sued to enforce the contract by
injunction and claimed damages. Selfridge argued that Dunlop could not enforce the burden of a
contract between Dunlop and Dew, which Selfridge had not agreed to.

At trial, the judge of the first instance, found in favour of Dunlop. At appeal the damages and
injunction were reversed, saying that Selfridge was not a principal or an agent and thus was not
bound.
Purity of contract was accepted in India in 
Jamna Das v/s Pandit Ram Autar Pande (1911)
[1] This is a perfectly plain case. The action is brought by a mortgagee to enforce
against a purchaser of the mortgaged property an undertaking that he entered into
with his vendor. The mortgagee has no right to avail himself of that. He was no party
to the sale. The purchaser entered into no contract with him, and the purchaser is
not personally bound to pay this mortgage debt. Therefore, he is not a person from
whom, in the words of the 90th section of the Transfer of Property Act, u the balance
is legally recoverable.
—---------------------------
But purity of consideration is not acceptable in India.
 
There are some exceptions to the privity principle and these include contracts
involving trusts, insurance companies, agent-principal contracts, and cases
involving negligence.
M.C. Chacko Vs. The State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum

The High Land Bank Kottayam of which the appellant M.C. Chacko was the Manager,

had an overdraft account with Kottayam Bank. K.C. Chacko, the father of the

appellant had executed letters of guarantee in favour of Kottayam Bank agreeing to

pay amounts due by High Land Bank under the overdraft arrangement. Kottayam

Bank filed a suit against High Land Bank for the recovery of the amount due in

account. To this suit were also impleaded K.C. Chacko, M.C. Chacko and the son,

daughter and wife of K.C. Chacko. However, the trial court only decreed the suit

against High Land Bank and against M.C. Chacko, received by him from his father

under the deed date June 21st, 1951. K.C. Chacko died during the course of the

proceedings. The court held that Kottayam Bank not being a party to the deed was

not bound by the covenants in the deed nor could it enforce the covenants. A person

not a party to a contract cannot, subject to certain well recognized exceptions,

enforce the terms of the contract. Except in the case of beneficiary under a trust

created by a contract and under a trust created by a contract or in the case of a

family arrangement, no right may be enforced by a person who is not a party to a

contract. Thus, as Kottayam Bank was not a beneficiary under the deed, it could not

enforce the charge.

Khwaja Muhammad Khan(defendant) entered into a contract on 25 th

October 1877 with the father of Husaini Begum(plaintiff) for the marriage of
his son Rustam Ali and the plaintiff. The contract expressed that after the
marriage, the defendant would pay rupees 500 per month on perpetuity
bases as kharch-i-padan, out of specific properties mentioned in the
contract. The marriage took place on 2nd November 1877 however both
Rustam Ali and Husaini Begum(plaintiff) were minors due to which plaintiff
was welcomed in her matrimonial home in 1883 and the couple lived
together till 1893 after which due to various differences plaintiff left her
matrimonial home and started residing at her pre-nuptial home. And during
this time the defendant discontinued the payment of rupees 500 as agreed
earlier. The suit was bought in this respect, the subordinate judge provided
the decision in favor of Khwaja Muhammad Khan(defendant) but the
subsequent appeal was made to the High Court where the decision of the
subordinate court was reversed and the court pronounced the decision in
favor of Husaini begum (plaintiff). This led Khwaja Muhammad Khan to
appeal before Privy Council.
The court held that the contract which was executed created a charge on

the immovable property and designated the plaintiff as the sole beneficiary

under it, therefore even if she is not a party to the contract she is qualified

to proceed with the legal actions for enforcement of her claim. Additionally,

the charge created by the defendant which tied him to make regular

payments, and the contract which was executed did not provide any

reference to the condition that such payment would be rendered only if she

resides with her husband at her matrimonial home. The only time provided

in the agreement was regarding the commencement of payments.

Therefore, the court gave a decision in favor of the plaintiff. 

N. Devaraja urs v. Ramkrishnah

 The Indian Contract Act clearly states that there cannot be a
stranger to a contract. It means any third party which is not
a part of the contract for breach of contract. There are some
exceptions. These exceptions are explained through the
Doctrine of Privity of a Contract.
 The Indian Contract Act. 1872, allows the ‘consideration’
for an agreement to proceed from a third-party. Here it
should be noted the difference between the stranger (third-
party) to consideration and a stranger to a contract.
 In general, from the Indian Contract Act, a contract creates
rights and obligations only between the parties to the
contract. A third party neither acquires a right nor any
liabilities under such contract.  i.e. the law does not allow a
stranger to file a suit on the contract. This right is available
only to a person who is party to the contract. This is what
the proclaimed doctrine of “privity of contract”
 Example: A has borrowed some money from B. A owns
property and decides to sell it to C. C promises to pay B on
behalf of A. However, if C fails to pay, then B cannot sue C
since C is a stranger to the contract between A and B.
 In Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 case, A was in poor
health and agreed with the defendant, his nephew, that he
would transfer the trade and goodwill of his coal business to
him on the basis that the nephew employed him as a
consultant for the rest of his life and paid him for this. The
nephew also agreed to pay A’s wife after A died for the rest
of her life. She was not a party to the agreement. Upon the
death of A, the nephew paid A’s wife once but then not
again. A’s widow brought an action as administrator of A’s
estate and also in her personal capacity claiming for specific
performance. The court granted the widow an order of
specific performance for the payment owed by A’s nephew
as an administrator to her husband’s estate. The court held
that the damages would also not be limited due to the loss
that had been caused to A’s estate. However, the court found
that A’s widow could not claim under her personal capacity
 as she was a third party to the contract and was not a party
to the original agreement.
 In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. Vs. Selfridge & Co. Ltd.
1915 A.C. 847, 853. 3 case,Dunlop, a tyre manufacturing
company, made a contract with Dew, a trade purchaser, for
tyres at a discounted price on condition that they would not
resell the tyres at less than the listed price and that any
reseller who wanted to buy them from Dew had to agree not
to sell at the lower price either. Dew sold the tyres to
Selfridge at the listed price and made Selfridge agree not to
sell at a lower price either and that they would pay £5 in
damages if they violated this agreement. Selfridge proceeded
to sell the tires below the price he promised to sell them for.
Dunlop brought action and was successful at trial. The
appellant Court held that Dunlop is the third party to the
contract between Dew and Selfridge & Co. and also held
that the appellant is seeking to enforce the maintenance of
prices to public disadvantage and overturned the ruling by
the lower court.

 Exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract

 The doctrine of Privity has exceptions which allow a
stranger to enforce a Contract through an agent

Trust:
 This is the most common exception to the doctrine of privity
of contract. If a contract is made between the trustee of a
trust and another party, then the beneficiary of the trust can
sue by enforcing his right under the trust, even if he is a
stranger to the contract.
 The intention to benefit the third party must be irrevocable
and a mere intention to confer a benefit is not enough, there
must be an intention to create a trust. An intention to create
a trust is clearly distinguishable from a mere intention to
make a gift.
  In Rana Uma Nath Baksh Singh v. Jang Bahadur A.I.R.
(1938) P.C. 245 case, Uma Nath Baksh Singh was appointed
by his father as his successor and was put in possession of his
entire estate. In consideration, thereof Uma Nath Baksh
Singh agreed with his father to pay a certain sum on money
and to give a village to Jang Bahadur, the illegitimate son of
his father, on his attaining majority. On attaining majority
Jang Bahadur asked for the proceedings of contract. Uma
Nath Baksh Singh rejected the same and contend that Jang
Bahadur is not the party to the contract. The Court held
that in the circumstances mentioned above a trust was
created between Uma Nath Baksh Singh and his father in
favour of Jang Bahadur for the specified amount and the
village, Hence Uma Nath Baksh Singh was entitled to
maintain the suit.
 In Khwaja Muhammad Khan v Hussaini Begum (1910) 37
IA 152 case, there was an agreement between the father and
father-in-law of ‘A’ that in consideration of her marriage
with his son, he would pay to her Rs.500 per month for the
betel-leaf expenses and some immovable property was
charged for the payment of these expenses. A filed a suit for
recovery of arrears. The Court held that although she was
not a party to the agreement, she was entitled to enforce her
claim being the beneficiary.

Family Settlement (Marriage/Partition):

 If a contract is made under a family arrangement to benefit
a stranger (person not a party to the contract), then the
stranger can sue in his own right as a beneficiary of the
contract.
 In Rose Fernandez v. Joseph Gonsalves (1924) ILR 48 Bom
673 case, The girl’s (plaintiff’s) father entered into an
agreement for her marriage with the defendant. The
defendant married someone else. The plaintiff sued the
defendant on attaining maturity. The court held that the girl
after attaining majority could sue the defendant for damages
 for breach of the promise of marriage and the defendant
could not take the plea that she was not a party to the
agreement because she was beneficiary to the contract.
 In Daropti v. Jaspat Rai (1905) PR 171. 2, case, the
defendant’s wife left him because of his ill-treatment. He
then executed an agreement with her father, promising him
to treat her properly, and if he failed to do so, to pay her
monthly maintenance and to provide her with a dwelling.
Subsequently, she was again ill-treated by the defendant and
also driven out of the house. She sued her husband. The
Court Held that she was entitled to enforce the promise
made by the defendant to her father as she is beneficiary of
the contract between the two.
 In Shuppu Ammal Vs. Subramaniyam 4 Ind Cas 1083 case,
At the time of partition of HUF the brothers, agreed to
invest a certain sum of money in equal shares for
maintenance of their mother. But subsequently refused to do
so. Mother sued them in the court of law. The court held
that the mother is beneficiary to the contract between the
brothers and hence entitled to require her sons to make the
investment.

Contract through an Agent:

 If a person enters into a contract through an agent, where
the agent acts within the scope of his authority and in the
name of the person (principal). In this case, the Principal
gets rights and obligations under contracts entered through
agent provided agent acts within the authority and on behalf
of the principal.
 In Wakefield v Duckworth [1915] 1 KB 218 case, Mr
Wakefield was a professional photographer. Mr Duckworth,
a solicitor, attended his studio to purchase photographs for
use in defending his client on manslaughter charges. Mr
Wakefield knew the photographs were required for use in
the litigation, and Mr Duckworth requested as low a price as
possible for the photographs because his client was not a
 wealthy man. Mr Wakefield sought to recover the cost of the
photographs from the solicitor. The Court held that Mr
Wakefield was unsuccessful in his claim. The solicitor was
acting on behalf of his client and the photographer knew he
was, therefore, an agent of his client, the principal. Mr
Wakefield, therefore, had recourse only against the
principal. The transaction did not amount to a cash
transaction and there was no custom under which a solicitor
should incur personal liabilities in this context.

Acknowledgment or Estoppel:
 If a contract requires that a party pays a certain amount to a
third-party and he/she acknowledges it, then it becomes a
binding obligation for the party to pay the third-party. The
acknowledgment can also be implied
 Example: A gives Rs 1,000 to B to pay C. B acknowledges
the receipt of funds to be paid to C. However, B fails to pay
C. Now C can sue B for recovery of the amount.
 Example: A sold his house to B. A real estate broker, C,
facilitated the deal. Out of the sale price, C was to be paid Rs
25,000 as his professional charges. B promised to pay C the
amount before taking possession of the property. B made
three payments of Rs 5,000 each and then stopped paying
him. C filed a suit against B which was held by the Court
because B had acknowledged her liability by conduct.
 In N. devaraja urs v. Ramkrishnah AIR 1952 Mys 109 case,
A sold his house to B under a registered sale deed and left
part of the sale price in his hands desiring him to pay this
amount to C, his creditor. Subsequently, B made part
payments to C informing that they were out of the sale price
left with him and that balance would be remitted
immediately. Subsequently, B failed to remit the balance
amount and C sued him for the same. The court held that
the sit is maintainable in the Court. Actually, there is no
privity contract between B and C initially, but by paying
some amount and explaining it to C, B has acknowledged his
 liability towards C. Hence C is entitled to sue B for the
recovery of the amount.
 In similar case Kshirodebihari Datta V. Mangobinda Panda
(1934) I.L.R. 61 Cal. 841, The court held that B has
acknowledged his liability towards C by his conduct. C is
entitled to sue B for the recovery of the amount.

A Covenant running with the Land

 When a person purchases a piece of land with the notice that
the owner of the land will be bound by all duties and
liabilities affecting the land, then he can sue upon a contract
between the previous land-owner and a settler even if he was
not a party to the contract.
 In Tulk v Moxhay [1848] 41 ER 1143 case, A owned a piece
of land which he sold to B under a covenant that a certain
part of the land will be maintained as a public park. B
abided by the covenant and eventually sold the land to C.
Though C was aware of the covenant, he built a house in the
specific plot. When A came to know of it, he filed a suit
against C. Although C denied liability since he was not a
party to the contract, the Court held him responsible for
violating the covenant.
 In Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas
Catchment Board [1949] 2 KB 500  Case, The defendant was
a catchment board and covenanted with the owner of the
land on the banks of river Douglas, which was subject to
flooding. The defendant agreed to replace the outfall and to
enlarge the banks of the river as well as maintain this once
the work was complete. Two years later, one of the
covenantees under the agreement transferred her land to the
first plaintiff. The second plaintiff was a company that
rented the land from the first plaintiff. Subsequently, the
banks of the river burst and caused significant flooding to
the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiffs subsequently claimed
against the defendant for damages for breach of contract
and in tort. The court held that the defendant board had
 breached the contract and this breach had caused the
damage to the plaintiff’s land that had been complained of.
The court looked to the language of the agreement between
the original landowner and the catchment board and found
intention that the obligation to maintain the land would pass
to all future owners. On this basis, the plaintiffs could
enforce their rights under the original covenant.
Voidable agreement is mentioned in section 2(i) it may be due to
several reasons mentioned from Section 15 to 19a
 
15. “Coercion” defined.—“Coercion” is the committing, or
threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any
property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention
of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
 Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is
employed. 
Illustration A, on board an English ship on the high seas, causes B to enter into an agreement
by an act amounting to criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860). A
afterwards sues B for breach of contract at Calcutta. A has employed coercion, although his
act is not an offence by the law of England, and although section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) was not in force at the time when or place where the act was done. 3
—---
Case law,  Introduction:
This is a case is a landmark case of coerced adoption where a woman was
forced to adopt a child and this case was a landmark case of adoption and
contract and section 297 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact:
There was a Madrasi married couple, the husband died and his widow was
left and when the time came for the cremation the couple did not have any
child due to which the family of a husband thought the wife was not
competent to cremation of the husband.
So the family of the husband threatens the widow to adopt a boy otherwise
they will not allow her to remove the body of her husband for crimination.
So due to pressure, the widow applied for adoption but also applied for
cancellation due to which a breach of contract was held but the widow uses
the defense that her consent was not free she was coerced.
Judgement:
The Court held that the widow’s consent was not free it was induced by
coercion by the family of the deceased, a person who obstructs the dead
body from being removed cremation would be guilty of an offense under
Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code and the adoption was set aside.
Note: If consent taken under coercion than under section 19 the aggrieved
person will have the right to make the agreement voidable.  
 16. “Undue influence” defined.—(1) A contract is said to be induced
by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the
parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the
will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage
over the other. 
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to
dominate the will of another— (a) where he holds a real or apparent
authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to
the other; or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose
mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of
age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. 
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of
another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears,
on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the
burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue
influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will
of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of
section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). 
Illustrations (a) A having advanced money to his son, B, during his minority, upon B‟s
coming of age obtains, by misuse of parental influence, a bond from B for a greater amount
than the sum due in respect of the advance. A employs undue influence. (b) A, a man
enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by B‟s influence over him as his medical attendant,
to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his professional services, B employs undue
influence. (c) A, being in debt to B, the money-lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on
terms which appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not
induced by undue influence. (d) A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is
stringency in the money market. The banker declines to make the loan except at an unusually
high rate of interest. A accepts the loan on these terms. This is a transaction in the ordinary
course of business, and the contract is not induced by undue influence.] 
17. “Fraud” defined.—“Fraud” means and includes any of the
following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his
connivance, or by his agent1 , with intent to deceive another party
thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:— (1)
the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does
not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one
having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without
any intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5)
any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be
fraudulent. 
Explanation.—Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness
of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the
circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is
the duty of the person keeping silence to speak2 , or unless his silence
is, in itself, equivalent to speech. 
Illustrations (a) A sells, by auction, to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says
nothing to B about the horse‟s unsoundness. This is not fraud in A. (b) B is A‟s daughter and
has just come of age. Here, the relation between the parties would make it A‟s duty to tell B
if the horse is unsound. (c) B says to A—“If you do not deny it, I shall assume that the horse
is sound.” A says nothing. Here, A‟s silence is equivalent to speech. (d) A and B, being
traders, enter upon a contract. A has private information of a change in prices which would
affect B‟s willingness to proceed with the contract. A is not bound to inform B.
 
18. “Misrepresentation” defined.—“Misrepresentation” means and
includes— 
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the
information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though
he believes it to be true; 
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an
advantage to the person committing it, or any one claiming under
him; by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any
one claiming under him;
 (3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a
mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the
agreement. 
19. Voidability of agreements without free consent.—When consent
to an agreement is caused by coercion, 1 *** fraud or
misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option
of the party whose consent was so caused. A party to a contract whose
consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks
fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put
in the position in which he would have been if the representations
made had been true. 
Exception.—If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by
silence, fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract,
nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so
caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
Explanation.—A fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the
consent to a contract of the party on whom such fraud was practised,
or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a
contract voidable. 
Illustrations (a) A, intending to deceive B, falsely represents that five hundred maunds of
indigo are made annually at A‟s factory, and thereby induces B to buy the factory. The
contract is voidable at the option of B. (b) A, by a misrepresentation, leads B erroneously to
believe that, five hundred maunds of indigo are made annually at A‟s factory. B examines the
accounts of the factory, which show that only four hundred maunds of indigo have been
made. After this B buys the factory. The contract is not voidable on account of A‟s
misrepresentation. (c) A fraudulently informs B that A‟s estate is free from incumbrance. B
thereupon buys the estate. The estate is subject to a mortgage. B may either avoid the
contract, or may insist on its being carried out and the mortgage debt redeemed. (d) B, having
discovered a vein of ore on the estate of A, adopts means to conceal, and does conceal, the
existence of the ore from A. Through A‟s ignorance B is enabled to buy the estate at an
under-value. The contract is voidable at the option of A. (e) A is entitled to succeed to an
estate at the death of B, B dies: C, having received intelligence of B‟s death, prevents the
intelligence reaching A, and thus induces A to sell him his interest in the estate. The sale is
voidable at the option of A. 
 
19A. Power to set aside contract induced by undue influence.—When
consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement
is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so
caused. Any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or, if the
party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit thereunder,
upon such terms and conditions as to the Court may seem just. 
Illustrations (a) A‟s son has forged B‟s name to a promissory note. B under threat of
prosecuting A‟s son, obtains a bond from A for the amount of the forged note. If B sues on
this bond, the Court may set the bond aside. 
(b) A, a money-lender, advances Rs. 100 to B, an agriculturist, and, by undue influence,
induces B to execute a bond for Rs. 200 with interest at 6 per cent. per month. The Court may
set the bond aside, ordering B to repay the Rs. 100 with such interest as may seem just.]
—-------------------
5. Revocation of proposals and acceptances.—A proposal may
be revoked at any time before the communication of its
acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not
afterwards. An acceptance may be revoked at any time before
the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the
acceptor, but not afterwards. 
Illustrations A proposes, by a letter sent by post, to sell his house to B. B accepts
the proposal by a letter sent by post. A may revoke his proposal at any time
before or at the moment when B posts his letter of acceptance, but not
afterwards. B may revoke his acceptance at any time before or at the moment
when the letter communicating it reaches A, but not afterwards.
 
6. Revocation how made.—A proposal is revoked— (1) by the communication of
notice of revocation by the proposer to the other party; (2) by the lapse of the
time prescribed in such proposal for its acceptance, or, if no time is so
prescribed, by the lapse of a reasonable time, without communication of the
acceptance; (3) by the failure of the acceptor to fulfil a condition precedent to
acceptance; or (4) by the death or insanity of the proposer, if the fact of his death
or insanity comes to the knowledge of the acceptor before acceptance.
Question possible. Death or insanity of proposer before accepting matters not the
acceptor.
7. Acceptance must be absolute.—In order to convert a proposal into a promise,
the acceptance must— (1) be absolute and unqualified; (2) be expressed in some
usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in
which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be
accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may,
within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that
his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but if
he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance. 
8. Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration.—
Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any
consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is
an acceptance of the proposal. 
9. Promises, express and implied.—In so far as the proposal or acceptance of
any promise is made in words, the promise is said to be express. In so far as
such proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is
said to be implied. 
—----
CHAPTER II OF CONTRACTS, VOIDABLE CONTRACTS AND VOID
AGREEMENTS 
10. What agreements are contracts.—All agreements are contracts if they are
made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to
be void. Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in 1 [India] and not
hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is required to be made in
writing1 or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of
documents. 
11. Who are competent to contract.—Every person is competent to contract who
is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject 2 , and who
is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to
which he is subject. 
Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose suit relates to the nature of contracts of a minor,
fraudulent false interference by him, enforcement of the principle of Estoppel, sections 64, 65 of
the Contract Act, etc.
The respondent was Dharmodas Ghose, who was a minor, received a loan from Brahmodutt, a
lender in Calcutta, by saying that he was an adult and had written a mortgage deed (Mortgage
Deed) in his favour to get a loan. At the time when the mortgage was being considered for
advance money, At the time of standing, Kedarnath, the agent of Brahmodutt, had received
information that the respondent was a minor; So, he cannot execute the deed. But still he
executed a mortgage deed from Dharamdos Ghose.
The minor then filed a suit against Brahmodutt by his mother and guardian in which he appeal to
the court to cancel the mortgage deed, as he was a minor at the time of the mortgage deed being
executed. Justice Jenkins (Jenkins J.) who was a judge of the trial court, Accepting the appeal of
the respondent, he cancelled the mortgage deed.
—---------------
 64. Consequences of rescission of voidable contract.—When a person at whose
option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other party thereto need not perform
any promise therein contained in which he is promisor. The party rescinding
avoidable contract shall, if he have received any benefit thereunder from another
party to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as may be, to the person from
whom it was received.4 65. Obligation of person who has received advantage
under void agreement, or contract that becomes void.—When an agreement is
discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has
received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it,
or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it.
Illustrations (a) A pays B 1,000 rupees, in consideration of B‟s promising to marry
C, A‟s daughter. C is dead at the time of the promise. The agreement is void, but
B must repay A the 1,000 rupees. (b) A contracts with B to deliver to him 250
maunds of rice before the first of May. A delivers 130 maunds only before that
day, and none after. B retains the 130 maunds after the first of May. He is bound
to pay A for them. (c) A, a singer, contracts with B, the manager of a theatre, to
sing at his theatre for two nights in every week during the next two months, and B
engages to pay her a hundred rupees for each night‟s performance. On the sixth
night, A wilfully absents herself from the theatre, and B, in consequence, rescinds
the contract. B must pay A for the five nights on which she had sung. (d) A
contracts to sing for B at a concert for 1,000 rupees, which are paid in advance. A
is too ill to sing. A is not bound to make compensation to B for the loss of the
profits which B would have made if A had been able to sing, but must refund to B
the 1,000 rupees paid in advance. 
12. What is a sound mind for the purposes of contracting.—A person is said to be
of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if, at the time when he
makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as
to its effect upon his interests. A person who is usually of unsound mind, but
occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind. A
person who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not
make a contract when he is of unsound mind. 
If a person is of sound mind and makes a contract and then becomes unsound it
will not affect the contract.
Illustrations (a) A patient in a lunatic asylum, who is at intervals of sound mind, may
contract during those intervals. (b) A sane man, who is delirious from fever or who is so
drunk that he cannot understand the terms of a contract, or form a rational judgment as
to its effect on his interests, cannot contract whilst such delirium or drunkenness lasts. 
13. “Consent” defined.—Two or more persons are said to consent when they
agree upon the same thing in the same sense.  
Consent under IPC, 90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.—A
consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given
by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the
act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or
misconception; or Consent of insane person.—if the consent is given by a person who, from
unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of
that to which he gives his consent; or Consent of child.—unless the contrary appears from the
context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.
 
 
14. “Free consent” defined.—Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by
— (1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or (2) undue influence, as defined in
section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or (4) misrepresentation, as
defined in section 18, or (5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21
and 22. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but
for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or
mistake. 
—----------
Void agreements in sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 56
 
 
23/12/2022
 
 16. “Undue influence” defined.—(1) A contract is said to
be induced by “undue influence” where the relations
subsisting between the parties are such that one of the
parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other
and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage
over the other. 
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a
position to dominate the will of another— (a) where he
holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or
where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or (b)
where he makes a contract with a person whose mental
capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by
reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.
 (3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the
will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the
transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence
adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving
that such contract was not induced by undue influence
shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the
will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect
the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (1 of 1872). 
Illustrations (a) A having advanced money to his son, B, during his minority, upon
B‟s coming of age obtains, by misuse of parental influence, a bond from B for a
greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. A employs undue
influence. (b) A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by B‟s influence
over him as his medical attendant, to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his
professional services, B employs undue influence. (c) A, being in debt to B, the
money-lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on terms which appear to be
unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not induced by undue
influence. (d) A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is stringency in
the money market. The banker declines to make the loan except at an unusually
high rate of interest. A accepts the loan on these terms. This is a transaction in the
ordinary course of business, and the contract is not induced by undue influence.]
 Then shall apply section 19a,
Parda nashin means women who do not do social and commercial transactions
 
 
 
Ismail vs Amir Bibi 1902,
A contract with a pardanashin woman is presumed to have been induced by undue influence.
However, such a woman must be totally secluded from ordinary society. In the case of Ismail
vs Amir Bibi 1902, a lady stood as witness, put tenants, collected rents in respect of her
house. She was held not a pardanashin woman.

   

Coercion – Section 15 Undue Influence – Section 16

There is a clear threat involved and the person being There is no outward sign on undue
coerced knows it. influence and the person being
influenced may not realize it.

No relationship has to exist. A relationship that allows a person

to dominate the will of other must
exist.

Contract induced by coercion is voidable under Contract induced by undue

section 19 influence is voidable under section
19-A
 If an act, which is unlawful under IPC, has been used  
to force a person into contract, it is immaterial where
it has taken place, contract will still be voidable in
India.
 

 
17. “Fraud” defined.—“Fraud” means and includes any of the
following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his
connivance, or by his agent1 , with intent to deceive another party
thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:—
 (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to
be true; 
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; 
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; 
(4) any other act fitted to deceive; 
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. 
Explanation.—Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the
willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless
the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to
them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak2 , or
unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech. 
Illustrations (a) A sells, by auction, to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says
nothing to B about the horse‟s unsoundness. This is not fraud in A. (b) B is A‟s daughter and
has just come of age. Here, the relation between the parties would make it A‟s duty to tell B
if the horse is unsound. (c) B says to A—“If you do not deny it, I shall assume that the horse
is sound.” A says nothing. Here, A‟s silence is equivalent to speech. (d) A and B, being
traders, enter upon a contract. A has private information of a change in prices which would
affect B‟s willingness to proceed with the contract. A is not bound to inform B
In the case of SHRI KRISHAN vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY
the Supreme Court held that there was no fraud since the candidate kept
silent as to certain facts and that the university authorities could have
discovered the truth with ordinary diligence.
In the above mentioned case where a student kept silent with respect to the
shortage of his attendance which would make him ineligible to appear for
the university exams, it was held that mere silence does not amount to
fraud.
ESSENTIAL OF FRAUD :
a.There should be a statement of fact which is not true,
b.The person who makes a false statement should have the knowledge of it
being untrue,
c.The person who makes such a false statement must have the intention to
deceive the other/aggrieved party to induce the aggrieved person to enter
into such a contract.
BURDEN OF PROOF:
The burden of proof lies on the party taking the defense of fraud. As, in the
above mentioned example B has to prove that he had enter into such an
agreement only because A has willfully concealed the information relating
to the prices.
EFFECTS OF FRAUD ON A CONTRACT:
Any agreement that has been obtained by fraud is voidable at the option of
party so aggrieved. The aggrieved party will decide whether to perform the
contract or to void the contract. Also, if any monetary amount has been
paid under such a contract has to be returned/ repaid once the contract
becomes void.
REMEDIES FOR FRAUD:
As it is mentioned above that if parties have entered in to a contract by
virtue of fraud then such a contract is  voidable the option of the aggrieved
party. Remedies for such a misrepresentation are:
1.Annul:
Annul means to rescind/terminate.  If the aggrieved party wants he can
cancel the contract and or can also claim for damages. Rescission is the
unwinding of a transaction. Such an option is given to the aggrieved party
to bring the parties back to the same position in which they were before
they entered into a contract i.e. by maintaining a status quo.
—--------
In Ward v. Hobbes (1878) , the House of Lords held that if a seller uses artifice
or disguise to conceal the defects in the product which is to be sold, it would amount
to fraud on the buyer; still no duty to disclose the defects in the product is imposed
on the seller by the doctrine of caveat emptor.
—----------
In Akhtar Jahan Begam vs. Hazarilal, A sold some property to B stating in the sale
deed that he won't be liable to B if he suffered any loss owing to A's defective title. A
had, earlier to this transaction, sold this property to somebody else, but didn't inform
B about it.
—------
Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, whereby
the defendant is fraudulent if he: (i) knows the statement to be false, or. (ii) does not
believe in the statement, or. (iii) is reckless as to its truth.
 
---
 
 
 
 
18. “Misrepresentation” defined.—“Misrepresentation” means
and includes— (1) the positive assertion, in a manner not
warranted by the information of the person making it, of that
which is not true, though he believes it to be true; 
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive,
gains an advantage to the person committing it, or any one
claiming under him; by misleading another to his prejudice, or
to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; (3) causing,
however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a
mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of
the agreement.
Note: All Insurance are considered contingent and all related issues covered under section 31
except Life insurance
fraud is in section 17 and misrepresentation is in section 18, the difference between fraud and
misrepresentation is that a person committing fraud knows about the truth and he is not
innocent while in misrepresentation in section of 18 a person may be innocent and not know
the facts but still he is liable for the action. In tort fraud is considered a liability while there is
no option of misrepresentation in torts. 
10 ml is that both fraud and misrepresentation is liable is liable under section 19 and profit
which is gained either under section 17 or section 18 need to be returned and section put a 64
becomes applicable that says that if you have gained any profit by fraud or misrepresentation
you have to return it.  and under section 65 if the agreement is void and section 64 it is if the
agreement is voidable it has to be returned. 
—---------------
If in a contract there are two parties and both are on mistake then the contract will be void
and if only one party is on mistake then the contract will be valid. 
If the mistake is of law it will be considered like a mistake of fact and And section 20 and 22
shall apply.
—----- Question it is asked that mistake of fact is in quation 20, 21 
then it is in 20
Mistake of law in Section 21
 mistake of both parties in section 20 
Mistakes of single party in a section 22
Agreement shall be void in section 20 and shall remain valid in section 22
20. Agreement void where both parties are under mistake as to matter
of fact.—Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake
as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Explanation.—An erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing
which forms the subject-matter of the agreement, is not to be deemed
a mistake as to a matter of fact. 
Illustrations (a) A agrees to sell to B a specific cargo of goods supposed to be on its way from
England to Bombay. It turns out that, before the day of the bargain, the ship conveying the
cargo had been cast away and the goods lost. Neither party was aware of the these facts. The
agreement is void. (b) A agrees to buy from B a certain horse. It turns out that the horse was
dead at the time of bargain, though neither party was aware of the fact. The agreement is
void. (c) A, being entitled to an estate for the life of B, agrees to sell it to C. B was dead at the
time of the agreement, but both parties were ignorant of the fact. The agreement is void. 
21. Effect of mistakes as to law.—A contract is not voidable because
it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in 1 [India]; but a
mistake as to a law not in force in 1 [India] has the same effect as a
mistake of fact. 2 * * * * * Illustration A and B make a contract
grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is barred by the
Indian Law of Limitation; the contract is not voidable. 3 * * * * * 
22. Contract caused by mistake of one party as to matter of fact.—A
contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the
parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact.
23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not.—The
consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless— it is
forbidden by law4 ; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would
defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent ; or involves or
implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court
regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these
cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be
unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is
unlawful is void. Illustrations (a) A agrees to sell his house to B for
10,000 rupees. Here B‟s promise to pay the sum of 10,000 rupees is
the consideration for A‟s promise to sell the house, and A‟s promise
to sell the house is the consideration for B‟s promise to pay the
10,000 rupees. These are lawful considerations.
 (b) A promises to pay B 1,000 rupees at the end of six months, if C,
who owes that sum to B, fails to pay it. B promises to grant time to C
accordingly. Here, the promise of each party is the consideration for
the promise of the other party, and they are lawful considerations. (c)
A promises, for a certain sum paid to him by B, to make good to B the
value of his ship if it is wrecked on a certain voyage. Here, A‟s
promise is the consideration for B‟s payment and B‟s payment is the
consideration for A‟s promise, and these are lawful considerations.
(d) A promises to maintain B‟s child, and B promises to pay A 1,000
rupees yearly for the purpose. Here, the promise of each party is the
consideration for the promise of the other party. They are lawful
considerations. (e) A, B and C enter into an agreement for the division
among them of gains acquired or to be acquired, by them by fraud.
The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful. (f) A promises to
obtain for B an employment in the public service and B promises to
pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, as the consideration for
it is unlawful. (g) A, being agent for a landed proprietor, agrees for
money, without the knowledge of his principal, to obtain for B a lease
of land belonging to his principal. The agreement between A and B is
void. as it implies a fraud by concealment, by A, on his principal. (h)
A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B
for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the things taken.
The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful. (i) A‟s estate is sold
for arrears of revenue under the provisions of an Act of the
Legislature, by which the defaulter is prohibited from purchasing the
estate. B, upon an understanding with A, becomes the purchaser, and
agrees to convey the estate to A upon receiving from him the price
which B has paid. The agreement is void, as it renders the transaction,
in effect, a purchase by the defaulter, and would so defeat the object
of the law. (j) A, who is B‟s mukhtar, promises to exercise his
influence, as such, with B in favour of C, and C promises to pay 1,000
rupees to A. The agreement is void, because it is immoral. (k) A
agrees to let her daughter to hire to B for concubinage. The agreement
is void, because it is immoral, though the letting may not be
punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Void agreements 24. Agreement void, if considerations and objects
unlawful in part.—If any part of a single consideration for one or
more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several
considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.
Illustration A promises to superintend, on behalf of B, a legal
manufacture of indigo, and an illegal traffic in other articles. B
promises to pay to A a salary of 10,000 rupees a year. The agreement
is void, the object of A‟s promise, and the consideration for B‟s
promise, being in part unlawful. 
25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and
registered or is a promise to compensate for something done or is a
promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law.—An agreement made
without consideration is void, unless— (1) it is expressed in writing
and registered under the law for the time being in force for the
registration of 1 [documents], and is made on account of natural love
and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each
other ; or unless (2) it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a
person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor,
or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do; or
unless; (3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to
be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized
in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor
might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of
suits. In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.
Explanation 1.—Nothing in this section shall affect the validity, as
between the donor and donee, of any gift actually made
Explanation 2.—An agreement to which the consent of the promisor
is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is
inadequate; but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into
account by the Court in determining the question whether the consent
of the promisor was freely given. Illustrations (a) A promises, for no
consideration, to give to B Rs. 1,000. This is a void agreement. (b) A,
for natural love and affection, promises to give his son, B, Rs. 1,000.
A puts his promise to B into writing and registers it. This is a contract.
(c) A finds B‟s purse and gives it to him. B promises to give A Rs.
50. This is a contract. (d) A supports B‟s infant son. B promises to
pay A‟s expenses in so doing. This is a contract. (e) A owes B Rs.
1,000, but the debt is barred by the Limitation Act. A signs a written
promise to pay B Rs. 500 on account of the debt. This is a contract. (f)
A agrees to sell a horse worth Rs. 1,000 for Rs. 10. A‟s consent to the
agreement was freely given. The agreement is a contract
notwithstanding the inadequacy of the consideration. (g) A agrees to
sell a horse worth Rs. 1,000 for Rs. 10. A denies that his consent to
the agreement was freely given. The inadequacy of the consideration
is a fact which the Court should take into account in considering
whether or not A‟s consent was freely given.
26. Agreement in restraint of marriage, void.—Every agreement in
restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void.
Marriage is a fundamental right. 
The case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr is a
landmark judgment that has clarified the validity of inter-caste
marriages. It can be observed from the court’s decision that any
person who is a major has a right to choose the partner of their
choice. It can be further considered to be a part of Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The act of violence caused by the family members
due to the inter-caste or different religion marriage is considered to be
a barbaric practice which is unjust as it would be a curtailment of the
fundamental right of a person because of some people’s feudal
mindsets.
 Shakti Vahini v Union of India & ors that any attempt by Khap
Panchayats or any other assembly to scuttle or prevent two consenting adults from
marrying is absolutely 'illegal' and laid down preventive, remedial and punitive
measures in this regard.
 
27. Agreement in restraint of trade, void.—Every agreement by which
any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or
business of any kind, is to that extent void. Exception 1.—Saving of
agreement not to carry on business of which good-will is sold.—One
who sells the good-will of a business may agree with the buyer to
refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local
limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the good-
will from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such
limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature
of the business. 
Agreement to restrain trade can be valid in section 36 clause 2 in
partnership act. Under section 36 also a provision today's train a
person from trade is there has been a trust or Foundation why he
walks and under section 54 also a person can be restrained from work
and by court also My coat also some conditions are accepted as a
person like service act or service agreement not to work anywhere
else for and to work only at their companies for 2-3 of all five years as
think it.
Sometimes they are social agreements or commercial agreement as
well as one will purchase goods from a particular company.
Bed in section 27 there is only one exception of good–will and all the
other exceptions are under Partnership Act.
28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.—2 [Every
agreement,— (a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely
from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the
usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the
time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or (b) which
extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party
thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the
expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing
his rights, is void to the extent.] Exception 1.—Saving of contract to
refer to arbitration dispute that may arise.—This section shall not
render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any
dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or
class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the
amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of
the dispute so referred. 3 * * * * * Exception 2.—Saving of contract
to refer questions that have already arisen.—Nor shall this section
render illegal any contract in writing, by which two or more persons
agree to refer to arbitration any question between them which has
already arisen, or affect any provision of any law in force for the time
being as to references to arbitration.
1 [Exception 3.—Saving of a guarantee agreement of a bank or a
financial institution.—This section shall not render illegal a contract
in writing by which any bank or financial institution stipulate a term
in a guarantee or any agreement making a provision for guarantee for
extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party thereto from
any liability under or in respect of such guarantee or agreement on the
expiry of a specified period which is not less than one year from the
date of occurring or non-occurring of a specified event for
extinguishment or discharge of such party from the said liability.
Explanation.—(i) In Exception 3, the expression “bank” means— (a)
a “banking company” as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (b) “a corresponding new
bank” as defined in clause (da) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (c) “State Bank of India” constituted under
section 3 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955); (d) “a
subsidiary bank” as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State
Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959); (e) “a
Regional Rural Bank” established under section 3 of the Regional
Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976); (f) “a Co-operative Bank” as
defined in clause (cci) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949 (10 of 1949); (g) “a multi-State co-operative bank” as defined in
clause (cciiia) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of
1949); and (ii) In Exception 3, the expression “a financial institution”
means any public financial institution within the meaning of section
4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).]
29. Agreements void for uncertainty.—Agreements, the meaning of
which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.
Illustrations (a) A agrees to sell to B “a hundred tons of oil”. There is nothing whatever to show what
kind of oil was intended. The agreement is void for uncertainty. (b) A agrees to sell to B one hundred
tons of oil of a specified description, known as an article of commerce. There is no uncertainty here to
make the agreement void. (c) A, who is a dealer in cocoanut-oil only, agrees to sell to B “one hundred
tons of oil”. The nature of A‟s trade affords an indication of the meaning of the words, and A has
entered into a contract for the sale of one hundred tons of cocoanut-oil. (d) A agrees to sell to B “all
the grain in my granary at Ramnagar”. There is no uncertainty here to make the agreement void. (e) A
agrees to sell B “one thousand maunds of rice at a price to be fixed by C”. As the price is capable of
being made certain, there is no uncertainty here to make the agreement void. (f) A agrees to sell to B
“my white horse for rupees five hundred or rupees one thousand”. There is nothing to show which of
the two prices was to be given. The agreement is void. 
Evidence Act section 93, 94 patent ambiguity and 95, 96, 97, 98 latent ambiguity 
30. Agreements by way of wager void.—Agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be
brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide
the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made.
Exception in favour of certain prizes for horse-racing.—This section shall not be deemed to render
unlawful a subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, made or entered into
for or toward any plate, prize or sum of money, of the value or amount of five hundred rupees or
upwards, to be awarded to the winner or winners of any horse-race. Section 294A of the Indian Penal
Code not affected.—Nothing in this section shall be deemed to legalize any transaction connected
with horse-racing, to which the provisions of section 294A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
apply. 

 Agreement by way of wager is not defined anywhere in this act

 The effect of agreement by way of wager is void mentioned in Section
30
 Its definitions are given by Hawking, Subbarao, and anshan
 Definition is given in case of Carlil vs carbolic smoke ball company
and
 Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya And Others 
36. Agreement contingent on impossible events void.—Contingent agreements to do or
not to do anything, if an impossible event happens, are void, whether the impossibility
of the event is known or not to the parties to the agreement at the time when it is made.
Illustrations (a) A agrees to pay B 1,000 rupees if two straight lines should enclose a
space. The agreement is void. (b) A agrees to pay B 1,000 rupees if B will marry A‟s
daughter C. C was dead at the time of the agreement. The agreement is void
56. Agreement to do impossible act.—An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is
void. 
Contract to do an act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful.—A contract to do
an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some
event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act
becomes impossible or unlawful.1 Compensation for loss through non-performance of
act known to be impossible or unlawful.— Where one person has promised to do
something which he knew, or, with reasonable diligence, might have known, and which
the promisee did not know, to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make
compensation to such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through the
nonperformance of the promise. 
Illustrations (a) A agrees with B to discover treasure by magic. The agreement is void: (b) A
and B contract to marry each other. Before the time fixed for the marriage,. A goes mad. The
contract becomes void. (c) A contracts to marry B, being already married to C, and being
forbidden by the law to which he is subject to practise polygamy, A must make compensation
to B for the loss caused to her by the non-performance of his promise. (d) A contracts to take
in cargo for B at a foreign port. A‟s Government afterwards declares war against the country
in which the port is situated. The contract becomes void when war is declared. (e) A contracts
to act at a theatre for six months in consideration of a sum paid in advance by B. On several
occasions A is too ill to act. The contract to act on those occasions becomes void.
Note: section 36 and section 56 both look alike but the difference is that in
section 36 it is the event which is impossible or unlikely to happen and in
section 56 it is an act which is unlikely to happen or impossible to happen
31. “Contingent contract” defined.—A “contingent contract is a contract to do or not to do
something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen. 
Illustration A contracts to pay B Rs. 10,000 if B‟s house is burnt. This is a contingent contract. 
32. Enforcement of contracts contingent on an event happening.—
Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future
event happens cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event
has happened. If the event becomes impossible, such contracts
become void. 
Illustrations (a) A makes a contract with B to buy B‟s horse if A survives C. This contract
cannot be enforced by law unless and until C dies in A‟s lifetime. (b) A makes a contract
with B to sell a horse to B at a specified price, if C, to whom the horse has been offered,
refuses to buy him. The contract cannot be enforced by law unless and until C refuses to buy
the horse. (c) A contracts to pay B a sum of money when B marries C. C dies without being
married to B. The contract becomes void. 
33. Enforcement of contracts contingent on an event not happening.—
Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future
event does not happen can be enforced when the happening of that
event becomes impossible, and not before. 
Illustration A agrees to pay B a sum of money if a certain ship does not return. The ship is
sunk. The contract can be enforced when the ship sinks. 
34. When event on which contract is contingent to be deemed
impossible, if it is the future conduct of a living person.—If the future
event on which a contract is contingent is the way in which a person
will act at an unspecified time, the event shall be considered to
become impossible when such person does anything which renders it
impossible that he should so act within any definite time, or otherwise
than under further contingencies. 
Illustration A agrees to pay B a sum of money if B marries C. C marries D. The marriage of
B to C must now be considered impossible, although it is possible that D may die and that C
may afterwards marry B. 
35. When contracts become void which are contingent on happening of
specified event within fixed time.—Contingent contracts to do or not to do
anything if a specified uncertain event happens within a fixed time become
void if, at the expiration of the time fixed, such event has not happened, or
if, before the time fixed, such event becomes impossible. 
 When contracts may be enforced, which are contingent on specified event
not happening within fixed time.—Contingent contracts to do or not to do
anything, if a specified uncertain event does not happen within a fixed time
may be enforced by law when the time fixed has expired and such event has
not happened or, before the time fixed has expired, if it becomes certain
that such event will not happen. 
Illustrations (a) A promises to pay B a sum of money if a certain ship returns within a year. The
contract may be enforced if the ship returns within the year, and becomes void if the ship is burnt
within the year. (b) A promises to pay B a sum of money if a certain ship does not return within a
year. The contract may be enforced if the ship does not return within the year, or is burnt within the
year.
37. Obligation of parties to contracts.—The parties to a contract must
either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless
such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions
of this Act, or of any other law. Promises bind the representatives of
the promisors in case of the death of such promisors before
performance, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract. 
Illustrations (a) A promises to deliver goods to B on a certain day on payment of Rs. 1,000. A
dies before that day. A‟s representatives are bound to deliver the goods to B, and B is bound
to pay the Rs. 1,000 to A‟s representatives. (b) A promises to paint a picture for B by a
certain day, at a certain price. A dies before the day. The contract cannot be enforced either
by A‟s representatives or by B

 Which contract can be performed is mentioned in Specific Relief Act Section 10,
11, 12, and 13
 The contract which cannot be performed is mentioned in section 14 of Specific
Relief
 The Appeal shall be under Section 15 and and it shall be dealt under section 19
of Specific Relief

Person can take the compensation of damages under section 73 74 and 75

of contract act