Last minute revision contract law 2023 : Topper tips for doing great

1. Section 2(e) – Definition of Contract Law:

This section defines a contract as an agreement that is enforceable by law. An agreement essentially involves a promise or set of promises made between parties, and those promises must be made with the intention of creating legal obligations.

2. Section 10 – What Agreements Are Contracts:

This section lays down the conditions that must be met for an agreement to be considered a valid contract:

• Free consent: The consent of the parties must be free and not obtained through coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.
• Lawful consideration and object: The agreement must have a lawful consideration (something of value) and a lawful object (the purpose of the agreement).
• Not expressly declared void: The agreement must not fall under the categories that are expressly declared void by the Act.

3. Section 14 – “Free Consent” Defined in contract law

Consent is a crucial element in the formation of a contract. Consent is considered free when it’s not influenced by any of the following factors:

• Coercion: Committing or threatening to commit any act that harms or threatens to harm the person, property, or reputation of the other party.
• Undue Influence: Taking advantage of a position of power to manipulate the will of the other party.
• Fraud: Intentional deception to induce another party into entering a contract.
• Misrepresentation: Making a false statement that leads the other party to enter into a contract.
• Mistake: When both parties are under a misconception regarding an important fact.

4. Section 84 – Discharge of Surety by Release or Discharge of Principal Debtor:

This section deals with the discharge of a surety (a person who guarantees the performance of a contract by another party). If the creditor releases or discharges the principal debtor (the person whose performance is guaranteed), the surety is also discharged to the extent of the loss caused by the discharge.

5. Landmark Cases and Illustrations:

• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893): Contract Law

• This case is an illustration of a unilateral contract. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised a product and promised a reward to anyone who contracted influenza after using the product as directed. Mrs. Carlill used the product and still contracted influenza. The court held that the advertisement constituted a unilateral contract, and she was entitled to the reward because she had fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the advertisement.

• Balfour v. Balfour (1919): Contract Law

• In this case, Mr. Balfour promised to pay his wife an allowance while he was working abroad. However, the couple later separated and eventually divorced. The court held that domestic agreements, which are presumed to be social and not intended to create legal relations, are not enforceable contracts.

• Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903):

• In this case, an infant (a minor under 18) mortgaged his property. The court held that a contract with a minor is void and not enforceable because a minor lacks the legal capacity to enter into a contract.

• Hadley v. Baxendale (1854): Contract Law

• This case established the principle that damages for breach of contract must be either: a) Those that arise naturally from the breach (“direct” or “general” damages), or b) Those that were in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract (“special” or “consequential” damages).

here are summaries of a few more landmark cases under the Indian Contract Act, 1872:

1. Mohri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903):

• Illustrates: This case involved a minor who mortgaged his property. The lender sued for recovery. The court held that contracts with minors are void, and the minor could not be held liable to repay the loan.

2. Thilak Ram v. Banarsi Dass (1934):

• Illustrates: The court held that if the mistake is about the identity of the subject matter of the contract, the contract is void. In this case, a person agreed to buy a car, but there were two cars with the same name. The contract was void due to mutual mistake about the identity of the subject matter.

3. State of Maharashtra v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (1995):

• Illustrates: The court ruled that a government order to supply biscuits was not an offer that could be accepted. There was no mutual assent and thus no valid contract.

4. Laxman Das v. Union of India (1982):

• Illustrates: This case involved a promise of a job given by a politician. The court held that vague political promises do not give rise to a legally enforceable contract.

5. P. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987):

• Illustrates: The court held that a public auctioneer can refuse to accept the highest bid without giving any reason because the auctioneer is not making an offer but inviting offers.

6. Mithoolal Nayak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1962):

• Illustrates: The court held that a minor’s agreement to pay premium on a life insurance policy was not void since the contract was for the minor’s benefit and was ratified after reaching adulthood.

7. Smt. Manju Bhatia v. M/s. S. G. Bhargava (1995):

• Illustrates: The court held that if a term of a contract is illegal, the whole contract may be void. In this case, a lease agreement to let out premises for illegal activities was held void.

8. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. M. Lachmandas & Co. (1966):

• Illustrates: This case highlighted the concept of ‘time is the essence of the contract.’ The court held that if parties intend that performance must be strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract, then any delay can be a breach of contract.

These landmark cases and their summaries provide insight into the complexities and interpretations of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Each case illustrates different facets of contract law, from considerations of minors and mistakes to the enforceability of promises and the impact of illegal terms. It’s important to understand these cases within the broader context of contract law and seek legal advice when dealing with contract-related issues.