Contract / Civi...

Principle: The consideration of object of an agreement is unlawful if the court regards it as opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Facts: ‘X ’promises to obtain for ‘Y ’an employment in the public service and ‘Y ’promises to pay Rs. 500000 to ‘X ’

Principle: Two or more person are said to consent if they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, or undue influence, or fraud, or misrepresentation, or mistake.  

When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable (rescindable or terminable) at the option of the party whose consent was so caused, However, when consent to an agreement is caused by mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.

Facts: ‘X ’threatens to gun down ‘Y ’, if he (‘Y ’) does not sell his property worth Rs. 2000000 for Rs. 100000 only. As a consequence ‘Y ’agrees to sell it as demanded by ‘X ’. 

Principles:

a)  A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor ’s property, the age of majority is twenty-one.
b)  A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
c)  In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts:
Animesh convinces Kumud, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Kumud ’s mother Parineeti is her guardian. Nonetheless Kumud, without the permission of Parineeti, sells the land to Animesh for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Parineeti challenges this transaction claiming the Kumud is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Animesh. Thus Animesh is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Kumud.

Q. Why is Parineeti justified in challenging the sale transaction?

Principles:
a)  A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor ’s property, the age of majority is twenty-one.
b)  A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
c)  In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts:
Animesh convinces Kumud, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Kumud ’s mother Parineeti is her guardian. Nonetheless Kumud, without the permission of Parineeti, sells the land to Animesh for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Parineeti challenges this transaction claiming the Kumud is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Animesh. Thus Animesh is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Kumud.

Q. Animesh can be allowed to recover the money only if he can show that:

Acts of God provisions, also called Force Majeure clauses, relate to events outside human control, such as flash floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Generally, these provisions eliminate or limit liability for injuries or other losses resulting from such events. In contract law, an act of God may be interpreted as a defence against breach for failing to perform based on the concepts of impossibility or impracticality. When an act of God intervenes in the performance of a contract, the promise to perform is often discharged because of the unforeseen circumstance and the resulting delay, expense, or other factors resulting in what would otherwise amount to a breach. For example, if someone promises to be present and perform certain obligations on a speci fic day, but is unable to do so because a large storm cuts off all practical means of transportation to the job site, this may be considered an act of God that would forgive performance. A refund or rescheduling may still be called for, but direct liability under the contract might be avoided in all or in part due to the storm. Other kinds of contracts on the other hand, cannot be avoided by acts of God and may, in fact, be the whole point of the contract. A good example is an insurance policy. As a result, most insurance policies relating to acts of God only pertain to limiting the variable, such as types of damage, timing, and extent of coverage. Nevertheless, after major events, like wild fires, earthquakes, widespread floods, or hurricanes, insurance companies have been known to try to limit making payments based on force majeure clauses. Acts of God may also affect tort laws in America. Tort laws are most often associated with personal injuries. An act of God may be asserted as the intervening cause of a person ’s injury, without which the harm would never have occurred. In that case, the alleged tortfeasor (person accused of causing the injury) may escape liability. For example, if someone is injured while driving a car, but the accident was caused by an earthquake, then any other driver involved in the accident, the manufacturer of the car, and any other potentially in the injured driver ’s cross-hairs may escape liability by asserting that the act of God (the earthquake) is what actually caused the accident.

X gets his bike insured by PQR Insurance Company. X was drunk when he was driving the insured bike. He met with an accident. In the given limited facts to you, choose the correct option?

Acts of God provisions, also called Force Majeure clauses, relate to events outside human control, such as flash floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Generally, these provisions eliminate or limit liability for injuries or other losses resulting from such events. In contract law, an act of God may be interpreted as a defence against breach for failing to perform based on the concepts of impossibility or impracticality. When an act of God intervenes in the performance of a contract, the promise to perform is often discharged because of the unforeseen circumstance and the resulting delay, expense, or other factors resulting in what would otherwise amount to a breach. For example, if someone promises to be present and perform certain obligations on a speci fic day, but is unable to do so because a large storm cuts off all practical means of transportation to the job site, this may be considered an act of God that would forgive performance. A refund or rescheduling may still be called for, but direct liability under the contract might be avoided in all or in part due to the storm. Other kinds of contracts on the other hand, cannot be avoided by acts of God and may, in fact, be the whole point of the contract. A good example is an insurance policy. As a result, most insurance policies relating to acts of God only pertain to limiting the variable, such as types of damage, timing, and extent of coverage. Nevertheless, after major events, like wild fires, earthquakes, widespread floods, or hurricanes, insurance companies have been known to try to limit making payments based on force majeure clauses. Acts of God may also affect tort laws in America. Tort laws are most often associated with personal injuries. An act of God may be asserted as the intervening cause of a person ’s injury, without which the harm would never have occurred. In that case, the alleged tortfeasor (person accused of causing the injury) may escape liability. For example, if someone is injured while driving a car, but the accident was caused by an earthquake, then any other driver involved in the accident, the manufacturer of the car, and any other potentially in the injured driver ’s cross-hairs may escape liability by asserting that the act of God (the earthquake) is what actually caused the accident.

Which of the options given below correctly de fines ‘Act of God ’under the law of torts?

Acts of God provisions, also called Force Majeure clauses, relate to events outside human control, such as flash floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Generally, these provisions eliminate or limit liability for injuries or other losses resulting from such events. In contract law, an act of God may be interpreted as a defence against breach for failing to perform based on the concepts of impossibility or impracticality. When an act of God intervenes in the performance of a contract, the promise to perform is often discharged because of the unforeseen circumstance and the resulting delay, expense, or other factors resulting in what would otherwise amount to a breach. For example, if someone promises to be present and perform certain obligations on a speci fic day, but is unable to do so because a large storm cuts off all practical means of transportation to the job site, this may be considered an act of God that would forgive performance. A refund or rescheduling may still be called for, but direct liability under the contract might be avoided in all or in part due to the storm. Other kinds of contracts on the other hand, cannot be avoided by acts of God and may, in fact, be the whole point of the contract. A good example is an insurance policy. As a result, most insurance policies relating to acts of God only pertain to limiting the variable, such as types of damage, timing, and extent of coverage. Nevertheless, after major events, like wild fires, earthquakes, widespread floods, or hurricanes, insurance companies have been known to try to limit making payments based on force majeure clauses. Acts of God may also affect tort laws in America. Tort laws are most often associated with personal injuries. An act of God may be asserted as the intervening cause of a person ’s injury, without which the harm would never have occurred. In that case, the alleged tortfeasor (person accused of causing the injury) may escape liability. For example, if someone is injured while driving a car, but the accident was caused by an earthquake, then any other driver involved in the accident, the manufacturer of the car, and any other potentially in the injured driver ’s cross-hairs may escape liability by asserting that the act of God (the earthquake) is what actually caused the accident.

As per the information provided in the passage, who can be termed as a ‘Tortfeasor ’?

Acts of God provisions, also called Force Majeure clauses, relate to events outside human control, such as flash floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Generally, these provisions eliminate or limit liability for injuries or other losses resulting from such events. In contract law, an act of God may be interpreted as a defence against breach for failing to perform based on the concepts of impossibility or impracticality. When an act of God intervenes in the performance of a contract, the promise to perform is often discharged because of the unforeseen circumstance and the resulting delay, expense, or other factors resulting in what would otherwise amount to a breach. For example, if someone promises to be present and perform certain obligations on a speci fic day, but is unable to do so because a large storm cuts off all practical means of transportation to the job site, this may be considered an act of God that would forgive performance. A refund or rescheduling may still be called for, but direct liability under the contract might be avoided in all or in part due to the storm. Other kinds of contracts on the other hand, cannot be avoided by acts of God and may, in fact, be the whole point of the contract. A good example is an insurance policy. As a result, most insurance policies relating to acts of God only pertain to limiting the variable, such as types of damage, timing, and extent of coverage. Nevertheless, after major events, like wild fires, earthquakes, widespread floods, or hurricanes, insurance companies have been known to try to limit making payments based on force majeure clauses. Acts of God may also affect tort laws in America. Tort laws are most often associated with personal injuries. An act of God may be asserted as the intervening cause of a person ’s injury, without which the harm would never have occurred. In that case, the alleged tortfeasor (person accused of causing the injury) may escape liability. For example, if someone is injured while driving a car, but the accident was caused by an earthquake, then any other driver involved in the accident, the manufacturer of the car, and any other potentially in the injured driver ’s cross-hairs may escape liability by asserting that the act of God (the earthquake) is what actually caused the accident.

X is driving an insured bike. Suddenly due to heavy rainfall, X is unable to see a tree ahead. His bike hits the tree and gets badly damaged. In view of the facts given in the question, choose the correct option?

Principles:
a)  A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor ’s property, the age of majority is twenty-one.
b)  A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
c)  In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts:
Animesh convinces Kumud, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Kumud ’s mother Parineeti is her guardian. Nonetheless Kumud, without the permission of Parineeti, sells the land to Animesh for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Parineeti challenges this transaction claiming the Kumud is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Animesh. Thus Animesh is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Kumud.

Q. Which of the following is correct?

Principles:
a)  A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor ’s property, the age of majority is twenty-one.
b)  A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
c) In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts:
Animesh convinces Kumud, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Kumud ’s mother Parineeti is her guardian. Nonetheless Kumud, without the permission of Parineeti, sells the land to Animesh for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Parineeti challenges this transaction claiming the Kumud is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Animesh. Thus Animesh is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Kumud.

Q. Which of the following is correct?