Trace Your Case

Categories
OFFER AND INVITATION

Macpherson v. Appanna

ISSUE:

Whether it could be held that there was a concluded contract for the sale of "Morvern Lodge" in favor of the plaintiff on the 14th August, as stated by him in the plaint?

Did the defendant make a counteroffer when saying won't accept less than 10,000?

RULE:

A mere statement cannot be held to be a counteroffer or an offer.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
OFFER AND INVITATION

Dickinson v. Dodds

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant’s promise to keep the offer open until Friday morning was a binding contract between the parties.

Was he allowed to revoke the offer to sell it to another party?

RULE:

An offeror is free to withdraw his offer at any point until the offeree has accepted it or has provided any sort of consideration to it.

An offeree must have knowledge of the revocation but explicit information is not necessary.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
OFFER AND INVITATION

Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball co. 

ISSUE:

Did the advertisement constitute an offer?

Does the performance of the conditions stated in the paper constitute acceptance to the offer?

Did the defendants have the intention to create legal relations?

RULE:

An advertisement can constitute a unilateral contract, which will be accepted by fulfilling the conditions of the contract.

The determination of a serious offer will be determined from the words and actions.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Investigation

Joginder Nahak V. State Of Orissa (2000) 1 SCC 272

ISSUE:

Whether Magistrate can record statements under section 164 without Investigating Officer?

RULE:

If the magistrates are put under the obligation to record their statements, then too many persons sponsored by culprits might throng before the portals of the magistrate courts for the purpose of creating record in advance for the purpose of helping the culprits.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
The Basic Structure Doctrine

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1

ISSUE:

Whether the reasons for setting up the NTT, were fallacious and non-existent or not?

Whether the act violates principles of Separation of powers, the rule of law, and judicial review, constitute amongst others, the basic structure of the Constitution?

Whether the Act is unconstitutional or not?

RULE:

Articles 225, 226, 227, 323B of the constitution of India

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now