Contract / Civil Law Test-3

Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the spouse would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under the penal law in india, if it is proved that the first as well as the second marriages were legally valid, i.e., all the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been performed at the time of contracting the marriages. According to the penal law in india, if a person, who has a living husband or wife, marries again, then such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine for committing the offence of bigamy. Although the penal law of India is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, an exception to the offence of bigamy may be created by the law relating to marriage applicable to followers of a particular religion. under the Hindu law relating to marriage, bigamy is not permitted. If a Hindu wife files a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that during the subsistence of her marriage, her husband had married a second wife by converting into another religion which legally permits having more than one wife, then her husband is liable to be punished for the offence of bigamy. Further, the Hindu law relating to marriage also provides that the punishment for offence of bigamy as provided in the penal law of india would be applicable to marriage between two Hindus.

Mr. A, a Hindu male, has been married to Ms. B, a Hindu female. Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘X ’which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘X ’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘X ’. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the spouse would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under the penal law in india, if it is proved that the first as well as the second marriages were legally valid, i.e., all the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been performed at the time of contracting the marriages. According to the penal law in india, if a person, who has a living husband or wife, marries again, then such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine for committing the offence of bigamy. Although the penal law of India is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, an exception to the offence of bigamy may be created by the law relating to marriage applicable to followers of a particular religion. under the Hindu law relating to marriage, bigamy is not permitted. If a Hindu wife files a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that during the subsistence of her marriage, her husband had married a second wife by converting into another religion which legally permits having more than one wife, then her husband is liable to be punished for the offence of bigamy. Further, the Hindu law relating to marriage also provides that the punishment for offence of bigamy as provided in the penal law of india would be applicable to marriage between two Hindus.

Mr. A, a Hindu male, has been married to Ms. B, a Hindu female. Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘X ’which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘X ’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘X ’. Ms. B filed a criminal complaint against Mr. A for committing the offence of bigamy. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the spouse would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under the penal law in india, if it is proved that the first as well as the second marriages were legally valid, i.e., all the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been performed at the time of contracting the marriages. According to the penal law in india, if a person, who has a living husband or wife, marries again, then such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine for committing the offence of bigamy. Although the penal law of India is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, an exception to the offence of bigamy may be created by the law relating to marriage applicable to followers of a particular religion. under the Hindu law relating to marriage, bigamy is not permitted. If a Hindu wife files a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that during the subsistence of her marriage, her husband had married a second wife by converting into another religion which legally permits having more than one wife, then her husband is liable to be punished for the offence of bigamy. Further, the Hindu law relating to marriage also provides that the punishment for offence of bigamy as provided in the penal law of india would be applicable to marriage between two Hindus.

Mr. A, a Hindu male, has been married to Ms. B, a Hindu female. Their marriage was not solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies or any other custom, but was performed by seeking blessings of their family members. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘X ’which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘X ’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘X ’. Ms. B filed a criminal complaint against Mr. A for committing the offence of bigamy. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the spouse would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under the penal law in india, if it is proved that the first as well as the second marriages were legally valid, i.e., all the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been performed at the time of contracting the marriages. According to the penal law in india, if a person, who has a living husband or wife, marries again, then such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine for committing the offence of bigamy. Although the penal law of India is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, an exception to the offence of bigamy may be created by the law relating to marriage applicable to followers of a particular religion. under the Hindu law relating to marriage, bigamy is not permitted. If a Hindu wife files a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that during the subsistence of her marriage, her husband had married a second wife by converting into another religion which legally permits having more than one wife, then her husband is liable to be punished for the offence of bigamy. Further, the Hindu law relating to marriage also provides that the punishment for offence of bigamy as provided in the penal law of india would be applicable to marriage between two Hindus.

Mr. A, a male belonging to religion ‘P ’, has been married to Ms. B, a female belonging to religion ‘P ’. Their marriage was solemnized in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘P ’. Monogamy is espoused as a cherished value by the followers of religion ‘P ’and provided as a pre-condition for a valid marriage for the followers of the religion. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘Q ’which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘Q ’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘Q ’. Ms. B wife filed a criminal complaint against Mr. A for committing the offence of bigamy. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the spouse would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under the penal law in india, if it is proved that the first as well as the second marriages were legally valid, i.e., all the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been performed at the time of contracting the marriages. According to the penal law in india, if a person, who has a living husband or wife, marries again, then such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine for committing the offence of bigamy. Although the penal law of India is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, an exception to the offence of bigamy may be created by the law relating to marriage applicable to followers of a particular religion. under the Hindu law relating to marriage, bigamy is not permitted. If a Hindu wife files a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that during the subsistence of her marriage, her husband had married a second wife by converting into another religion which legally permits having more than one wife, then her husband is liable to be punished for the offence of bigamy. Further, the Hindu law relating to marriage also provides that the punishment for offence of bigamy as provided in the penal law of india would be applicable to marriage between two Hindus.

Which of the following statements is incorrect?

Principles:
(i) An agreement enforceable by law is a contract
(ii) In order for an agreement to be enforceable in a court of law, there must be a meeting of minds b/w both the parties
(iii) Parties to a contract should do something for the other party. The obligation to do something for the other party is mutual. This is called consideration and the absence of consideration renders the contract unenforceable.

Facts: A promised to take B out for a dinner in a restaurant. Even after two weeks, A did not fulfill the promise. B wants to sue A to enforce that promise. If B goes to court:

Principle: If a party consent has been obtained by misrepresentation, the party to whom the misrepresentation has been made may reject the contract.

Facts: J is in need of a house for immediate occupation and hence approaches S, the owner of a house. The house is in a visibly precarious condition and requires a few repairs in order to make it habitable. However, S tells J that the house is good for lodging and J signs the leases agreement with S. J then finds out the actual state of the house and seeks to reject the contract

When parties to a contract are under a ‘mistake ’regarding an important fact related to such contract, it may affect the contract in two ways. It may, firstly, defeat the consent altogether that the parties are supposed to have given, that is to say, the consent is unreal. Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Secondly, the mistake may mislead the parties as to the purpose which they had contemplated. Where the mistake does not defeat consent, but only misleads the parties, i.e., where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. However, if the mistake is concerning an erroneous opinion regarding value of the subject-matter of the agreement, it is not a mistake as to a matter of fact. thus, agreement is void when: (1) both the parties to an agreement are mistaken, (2) their mistake is as to a matter of fact, and (3) the fact about which they are mistaken is essential to the agreement. Further, it is pertinent to note that a mistake, in order to invalidate a contract, should be a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law. Furthermore, where only one party to the contract is under mistake of fact, and the other party is not, the contract is not voidable merely for such reason.

Mr. A entered into an agreement to sell his bicycle which had been kept unused in his attic for a year, to Mr. B, at an agreed price. However, neither party was aware that at the time of entering into the agreement, the bicycle had already been destroyed by a fire in the attic. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

When parties to a contract are under a ‘mistake ’regarding an important fact related to such contract, it may affect the contract in two ways. It may, firstly, defeat the consent altogether that the parties are supposed to have given, that is to say, the consent is unreal. Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Secondly, the mistake may mislead the parties as to the purpose which they had contemplated. Where the mistake does not defeat consent, but only misleads the parties, i.e., where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. However, if the mistake is concerning an erroneous opinion regarding value of the subject-matter of the agreement, it is not a mistake as to a matter of fact. thus, agreement is void when: (1) both the parties to an agreement are mistaken, (2) their mistake is as to a matter of fact, and (3) the fact about which they are mistaken is essential to the agreement. Further, it is pertinent to note that a mistake, in order to invalidate a contract, should be a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law. Furthermore, where only one party to the contract is under mistake of fact, and the other party is not, the contract is not voidable merely for such reason.

Ms. X and Ms. Y entered into a contract of sale of an article, while reeling under the erroneous belief that the sale of the article, which was the subject-matter of the agreement, was permitted by the law in force in India. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

When parties to a contract are under a ‘mistake ’regarding an important fact related to such contract, it may affect the contract in two ways. It may, firstly, defeat the consent altogether that the parties are supposed to have given, that is to say, the consent is unreal. Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Secondly, the mistake may mislead the parties as to the purpose which they had contemplated. Where the mistake does not defeat consent, but only misleads the parties, i.e., where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. However, if the mistake is concerning an erroneous opinion regarding value of the subject-matter of the agreement, it is not a mistake as to a matter of fact. thus, agreement is void when: (1) both the parties to an agreement are mistaken, (2) their mistake is as to a matter of fact, and (3) the fact about which they are mistaken is essential to the agreement. Further, it is pertinent to note that a mistake, in order to invalidate a contract, should be a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law. Furthermore, where only one party to the contract is under mistake of fact, and the other party is not, the contract is not voidable merely for such reason.

Mr. J entered into an agreement with Mr. K for the sale of Mr. J ’s ‘club ’. At the time of entering into the agreement, while Mr. J believed that he was agreeing to sell his golf club, Mr. K believed that he was agreeing to buy a clubhouse owned by Mr. J. The agreement is void because:

When parties to a contract are under a ‘mistake ’regarding an important fact related to such contract, it may affect the contract in two ways. It may, firstly, defeat the consent altogether that the parties are supposed to have given, that is to say, the consent is unreal. Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Secondly, the mistake may mislead the parties as to the purpose which they had contemplated. Where the mistake does not defeat consent, but only misleads the parties, i.e., where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. However, if the mistake is concerning an erroneous opinion regarding value of the subject-matter of the agreement, it is not a mistake as to a matter of fact. thus, agreement is void when: (1) both the parties to an agreement are mistaken, (2) their mistake is as to a matter of fact, and (3) the fact about which they are mistaken is essential to the agreement. Further, it is pertinent to note that a mistake, in order to invalidate a contract, should be a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law. Furthermore, where only one party to the contract is under mistake of fact, and the other party is not, the contract is not voidable merely for such reason.

Mr. D appointed Mr. K to manage the cultivation of his land as he was unable to manage it himself due to his advanced age. Mr. K agreed to manage the cultivation of Mr. D ’s land if he granted Mr. K a lease of the said land. Mr. D agreed to the same and signed a deed which was, unknown to both parties, a gift deed of the land and not a lease deed. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

When parties to a contract are under a ‘mistake ’regarding an important fact related to such contract, it may affect the contract in two ways. It may, firstly, defeat the consent altogether that the parties are supposed to have given, that is to say, the consent is unreal. Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Secondly, the mistake may mislead the parties as to the purpose which they had contemplated. Where the mistake does not defeat consent, but only misleads the parties, i.e., where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. However, if the mistake is concerning an erroneous opinion regarding value of the subject-matter of the agreement, it is not a mistake as to a matter of fact. thus, agreement is void when: (1) both the parties to an agreement are mistaken, (2) their mistake is as to a matter of fact, and (3) the fact about which they are mistaken is essential to the agreement. Further, it is pertinent to note that a mistake, in order to invalidate a contract, should be a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law. Furthermore, where only one party to the contract is under mistake of fact, and the other party is not, the contract is not voidable merely for such reason.

Ms. X and Ms. Y entered into a contract of sale of an article which was agreed to be shipped by Ms. X in a ship named ‘The Cruiser ’and delivered to Ms. Y on an agreed date. Mr. X shipped the said article by a different ship named ‘The Mariner ’, without informing Ms. Y and the article was delivered to Ms. Y on the agreed date. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

Principle : For a contract an offer has to be made that is accepted and there is consensus ad idem.

Facts : A goes to a shop and asks the shopkeeper to deliver rice at his residence in their previous dealings of about 12 years; he had always ordered the Basmati variety of rice. The shopkeeper stores five varieties of rice. He delivers krishnakali variety. A had wanted basmati. Shopkeeper wants to enforce the contract.

Principle:  A contract enters into by the use of misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the other party.

Facts:  Lalit with an intention to deceive Rahul into buying his cement factory, falsely stated that his factory is capable of producing 2,000 kg of cement per day. However, in reality, the factory only has a production capacity of 500 kg/ day. Rahul gets induced and agrees to buy the factory. Is it a valid contract?

Principle:  With the counter-proposal made by the party, the original offer ceases to exist.

Facts:  Badal offered to sell his car to Pranav at the price of Rs. 3 lakhs. Pranav replies that he is ready to buy the car at Rs. 2.5 lakhs only. Badal refuses to sell at that price. Later, Pranav goes to Badal with Rs. 3 lakhs to buy the car. Is the offer to Rs. 3 lakhs still valid?