Q1- Shambu Dayal started ‘self service’ system in his shop. Smt. Prakash entered the shop took a basket and after taking articles of her choice into the basket reached the cashier for payments. The cashier refuses to accept the price. Can Shambu Dayal be compelled to sell the articles to Smt. Prakash? Decide.
Invitation to offer
The offer should be distinguished from an invitation to offer. An offer is the final expression of willingness by the offeror to be bound by his offer should the party chooses to accept it. Where a party, without expressing his final willingness, proposes certain terms on which he is willing to negotiate, he does not make an offer, but invites only the other party to make an offer on those terms. This is the basic distinction between offer and invitation to offer.
The display of articles with a price in it in a self-service shop is merely an invitation to offer. It is in no sense an offer for sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract. In this case, Smt. Prakash in selecting some articles and approaching the cashier for payment simply made an offer to buy the articles selected by her. If the cashier does not accept the price, the interested buyer cannot compel him to sell.
Q2- Ramaswami proposed to sell his house to Rajiv who sent his acceptance by post. Next day, Rajiv sends a telegram withdrawing his acceptance. Examine the validity of the acceptance in the light of the following:-
The problem is related with the communication and time of acceptance and its revocation. As per Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the communication of an acceptance is a complete as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards.
a) The telegram of revocation of acceptance was received by Ramaswami before the letter of acceptance Ans- Yes, the revocation of acceptance by Ramanathan (the acceptor) is valid.
b) The telegram of revocation and letter of acceptance both received together Ans- If Ramaswami opens the telegram first (and this would be normally so in case of a rational person) and reads it, the acceptance stands revoked. If he opens the letter first and reads it, revocation of acceptance is not possible as the contract has already been concluded
Q3- X’ agreed to become an assistant for 5 years to ‘Y’, who was a Doctor practicing at Ludhiana. It was also agreed that during the term of agreement ‘X’ will not practice on his own account in Ludhiana. At the end of one year, ‘X’ left the assistantship of ‘Y’ and began to practice on his own account. Referring to the provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, decide whether ‘X’ could be restrained from doing so
An agreement in restraint of trade / business / professional is void undersection 27 of the Indian contract act, 1872. But an agreement of service by which a person binds himself during the term of the agreement not to take service with anyone else directly or indirectly to promote any business in direct competition with that of his employer is not in restraint of trade. Therefore X can b restrained by an injuction from practicing on his own account in Ludhiana.
Agreement expressly declared as void.
Q4- Akhilesh entered into an agreement with Shekhar to deliver him (Shekhar) 5,000 bags to be manufactured in his factory. The bags could not be manufactured because of strike by the workers and Akhilesh failed to supply the said bags to Shekhar. Decide whether Akhilesh can be exempted from
liability under the provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Delivery of Bags
According to Section 56 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 when the performance of a Contract becomes impossible or unlawful subsequent to its formation, the contract becomes Void, this is termed as ‘supervening impossibility’ (i.e. impossibility which does not exist at the time of making the contract, but which arises subsequently).
But impossibility of performance is, as a rule, not an excuse from performance. It means that When a person has promised to do something, he must perform his promise unless the Performance becomes absolutely impossible. Whether a promise becomes absolutely Impossible depends upon the facts of each case.
The performance does not become absolutely impossible on account of strikes, lockout and civil disturbances and the contract in such a case is not discharged unless otherwise agreed by the parties to the contract..
In this case Mr. Akhilesh could not deliver the bags as promised because of strike by the workers. This difficulty in performance cannot be considered as impossible of performance attracting Section 56 and hence Mr. Akhilesh is liable to Mr. Shekhar for nonperformance of contract.
Q5-Miss X, a film actress agreed to work exclusively for a period of 2 years, for a film production company. However during the said period she enters into a contract for another film producer. Discuss the rights of the aggrieved film production company under The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Where a party comments a breach of negative term of a contract i.e., where he does something which he promised not to do, the aggrieved party can go to court which may be issue an order restraining him from doing what he promised not to do. Such an order of the court is known as injunction. Since Miss X has agreed to work exclusively for the film production company for a period of two years, the aggrieved film production company can go to court and get injunction order restraining Miss X working for another film production company.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX