Author: admin

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant validly rescinded the contract between himself and the purchaser before the car was sold on to any third parties?

RULE:

A party, who absconds with property acquired under a voidable title, intentionally making it impossible to communicate with them, waives their right to be made aware that the seller is rescinding the contract.

In those circumstances, the seller can rescind the contract by taking all reasonable steps to get the goods back.

ISSUE:

Whether “threat to commit suicide”vitiates free consent and falls under Section 15 i.e coercion of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

RULE:

Threat to commit suicide would prejudice any reasonable wife and son.

As section 15 reads "the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, Suicide is covered in the definition of culpable homicide and hence The threat of suicide amounts to coercion within Section 15.

While suicide itself was not a punishable offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) and attempt to commit suicide (Section 309 IPC) were punishable offenses.

An act like suicide can be forbidden, even if it is not punishable.

The court held that if a person threatens suicide to force someone into an agreement, it falls within the ambit of coercion since abetment or an attempt to commit suicide is prohibited by law.

ISSUE:

Whether a false representation by the Appellant and the company leads to fraud, due to misrepresentation in the prospectus?

RULE:

A material misstatement may be a ground for rescinding the contract, but the consequences of fraud and of breach of contract are widely different.

A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud.

Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person making it liable to an action of deceit.

ISSUE:

Whether the Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for deceit and fraud under Contract Law?

RULE:

In order to sustain an action for deceit, the Plaintiff must first prove that there was a statement as to facts there was false, and secondly, that it was false to the knowledge of defendants, or that they made it not caring whether it was true or false.

Also, when you have proved that the statement was false, you must further show that the statement was whether the sole cause of Plaintiff’s act, or materially contributed to his acting.

ISSUE:

Whether the contract between the claimant and Edward is void for mistake?

RULE:

Normally, the courts presume that parties who contract face-to-face intend to contract with the person in front of them (inter praesentes), whoever that turns out to be.

This presumption can be rebutted where it is clear that the claimant only intended to contract with a specific person or entity.

ISSUE:

Whether a mortgage agreement, executed by a father under the implicit threat of his son's criminal prosecution for forgery, constitutes a contract formed under undue influence and can be held voidable?

RULE:

A contract entered into under the pressure of potential criminal prosecution of a close family member, especially a son, is not the result of free and voluntary consent.

Such agreements are considered to be made under undue influence, as the natural affection and moral obligations a parent feels towards their child can be exploited, leading to decisions that are not entirely voluntary.

For a contract to be valid, it must be the outcome of the free will of the parties involved, without any form of coercion or undue pressure.

ISSUE:

Whether there was valid contract between the plaintiff and the Government agent?

RULE:

An offer which is meant for one person cannot be accepted by another as it prevents real consent.

ISSUE:

Whether innocent misrepresentation sufficient ground to give rise to right to claim rescission after the contract has been completed?

Whether the plaintiff had accepted the lorry before he alleged to reject it?

RULE:

A party to the contract loses its right to rescind a contract for misrepresentation if it affirms it by continuing to use the goods after discovering the defect.

ISSUE:

Whether a contract executed in favor of religious or spiritual leader crosses the threshold of undue influence?

RULE:

Fiduciary relationship between the parties put the transaction into judicial scrutiny.

Any relationship that creates significant potential to dominate the will of the plaintiff will assume undue influence and onus to disproof the charge lies on the defendant.