Law Assignment Essay
Q1- Shambu Dayal started ‘self service’ system in his store. Smt. Prakash entered the store took a basket and after taking articles of her pick into the basket reached the teller for payments. The teller refuses to accept the monetary value. 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 concluding look of willingness by the offerer to be bound by his offer should the party chooses to accept it. Where a party. without showing his concluding willingness. proposes certain footings on which he is willing to negociate. he does non do an offer. but invites merely the other party to do an offer on those footings. This is the basic differentiation between offer and invitation to offer.
The show of articles with a monetary value in it in a self-service store is simply an invitation to offer. It is in no sense an offer for sale. the credence of which constitutes a contract. In this instance. Smt. Prakash in choosing some articles and nearing the teller for payment merely made an offer to purchase the articles selected by her. If the teller does non accept the monetary value. the interested purchaser can non oblige him to sell.
Q2- Ramaswami proposed to sell his house to Rajiv who sent his credence by station. Following twenty-four hours. Rajiv sends a wire retreating his credence. Analyze the cogency of the credence in the visible radiation of the followers: –
The job is related with the communicating and clip of credence and its annulment. As per Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act. 1872. the communicating of an credence is a complete as against the acceptor when it comes to the cognition of the suggester. An credence may be revoked at any clip before the communicating of the credence is complete as against the acceptor. but non afterwards.
a ) The wire of annulment of credence was received by Ramaswami before the missive of credence Ans- Yes. the annulment of credence by Ramanathan ( the acceptor ) is valid.
B ) The wire of annulment and missive of credence both received together Ans- If Ramaswami opens the wire foremost ( and this would be usually so in instance of a rational individual ) and reads it. the credence stands revoked. If he opens the missive foremost and reads it. annulment of credence is non possible as the contract has already been concluded
Q3- X’ agreed to go an helper for 5 old ages to ‘Y’ . who was a Doctor practicing at Ludhiana. It was besides agreed that during the term of understanding ‘X’ will non pattern on his ain history in Ludhiana. At the terminal of one twelvemonth. ‘X’ left the assistantship of ‘Y’ and began to pattern on his ain history. Mentioning to the commissariats of The Indian Contract Act. 1872. decide whether ‘X’ could be restrained from making so
An understanding in restraint of trade / concern / professional is null undersection 27 of the Indian contract act. 1872. But an understanding of service by which a individual binds himself during the term of the understanding non to take service with anyone else straight or indirectly to advance any concern in direct competition with that of his employer is non in restraint of trade. Therefore Ten can b restrained by an injuction from practising on his ain history in Ludhiana.
Agreement expressly declared as nothingness.
Q4- Akhilesh entered into an understanding with Shekhar to present him ( Shekhar ) 5. 000 bags to be manufactured in his mill. The bags could non be manufactured because of work stoppage by the workers and Akhilesh failed to provide the said bags to Shekhar. Decide whether Akhilesh can be exempted from
liability under the commissariats of The Indian Contract Act. 1872.
Delivery of Bags
Harmonizing to Section 56 of Indian Contract Act. 1872 when the public presentation of a Contract becomes impossible or improper subsequent to its formation. the contract becomes Void. this is termed as ‘supervening impossibility’ ( i. e. impossibleness which does non be at the clip of doing the contract. but which arises later ) .
But impossibleness of public presentation is. as a regulation. non an alibi from public presentation. It means that When a individual has promised to make something. he must execute his promise unless the Performance becomes perfectly impossible. Whether a promise becomes perfectly Impossible depends upon the facts of each instance.
The public presentation does non go perfectly impossible on history of work stoppages. lockout and civil perturbations and the contract in such a instance is non discharged unless otherwise agreed by the parties to the contract. .
In this instance Mr. Akhilesh could non present the bags as promised because of work stoppage by the workers. This trouble in public presentation can non be considered as impossible of public presentation pulling Section 56 and therefore Mr. Akhilesh is apt to Mr. Shekhar for negligence of contract.
Q5-Miss X. a movie actress agreed to work entirely for a period of 2 old ages. for a movie production company. However during the said period she enters into a contract for another movie manufacturer. Discuss the rights of the aggrieved movie production company under The Indian Contract Act. 1872.
Where a party remarks a breach of negative term of a contract i. e. . where he does something which he promised non to make. the aggrieved party can travel to tribunal which may be publish an order keeping him from making what he promised non to make. Such an order of the tribunal is known as injunction. Since Miss X has agreed to work entirely for the movie production company for a period of two old ages. the aggrieved movie production company can travel to tribunal and acquire injunction order keeping Miss X working for another movie production company.