Explore Exams
Login Signup
Sign in Open App
All Exams  >   CLAT  >   4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG  >   All Questions

All questions of Contract / Civil Law for CLAT Exam

Clear all your doubts with EduRev

Principle 1: A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty one.

Principle 2: A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

Principle 3: In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming the Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.

Q.

Which  of the following is correct?

a)If Ajay is allowed to recover, Chaaru will benefit from both the money and the land.
b)If Ajay is not allowed to recover that will cause him injustice as he has not paid off the entire sale price.
c)If Ajay is allowed to recover the money, that will defeat the law framed for protecting the minors against fraudulent persons
d)None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
The correct option is C.
Direct from the principles.

Principle: A contract obtained by misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the buyer.

Facts: Anand wants to sell his house. Anupama approaches him with an offer to buy the house and Anand shows her the house. The house is not in a very good condition and visibly requires repairs, without which it is uninhabitable. Anand does not tell anything regarding the required repairs to be livable. Anupama purchases the house for a huge consideration. Later on when she wants to move in her things into the house to start living she realizes the heavy repairs that the house requires urgently.

a)Anupama will succeed because she would never have purchased the house in case if she was told about the status of the house
b)Anupama will succeed because Anand knowingly sold the house and he should have informed – Anupama about the condition of the house.
c)Anupama will not succeed because she has to be careful about what he is purchasing in all circumstances, unless the defects are concealed and cannot be seen or has been hidden
d)A buyer always has the option to refuse performance of his part of the contract.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Dia Mehta answered
The correct option is C.
Because while purchasing the house it was clear that the house is not in a very good condition and visibly requires repairs, without which it is uninhabitable.

Principle – Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort.
Facts – Ravi and Lakshman are not the best of friends. They have strained relations and they constantly compete against one another for better business prospects. Ravi sets up a grocery store where he sells food grains for Rs. 20 per kilogram, a rate that is substantially lower than other stores in the same area. The store is a huge success, and Ravi gains huge profits, as everybody prefers to buy the grains from his store. Soon after, Lakshman sets up another store next to Ravi‘s and puts up a board that says, Rice – Rs.15 per kilo and  Wheat – Rs. 12 per kilo‘. Attracted by the new offer, all of Ravi‘s customers now prefer to buy grains from Lakshman‘s store. Ravi, hence, incurs heavy losses and is forced to close down his store. He believes that Lakshman has set up the shop in order to make his business fail, and decides to sue Lakshman for damages. Will Ravi succeed?
a)No, Ravi cannot sue Lakshman, as Lakshman had an equal right to set up a store and sell commodities at his own prices.
b)No, Ravi will not succeed, as no legal right has been violated by Lakshman‘s act of setting up a store and selling food grains for a cheaper price.
c)Yes, Ravi will succeed, as he has suffered great losses, and the damage he has suffered must be compensated by Lakshman.
d)Ravi can sue, as Lakshman has committed a tort.
Correct answer is 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Raj Joshi answered
The principle does not talk about exercising your own rights, but rather about violation of a legal right. There has been no violation of a legal right in this case. Hence, the right answer would be 

Principal: A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the letter.
Q.
Facts: ‘X’ has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house, but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to ‘Y’. 
  • a)
    Gift of both the properties is valid
  • b)
    Gift of both the properties is void   
  • c)
    Gift of house is void, but the gift of the plot of land is valid
  • d)
    Gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
According to the principal if a gift comprising both existing and future property the later means (Future one ) will be void.So here Land's agreement will be void. and is not the property of X so he doesn't have right to be selling it. because of this it is void.

Principle: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.
Facts: X invited Y to her house for dinner. Y accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Y's failure to attend, X filed a suit against Y for the price of non-consumed food. Can this agreement be enforced by law?
  • a)
    This agreement cannot be enforced as it is just a social agreement
  • b)
    This agreement can be enforced as X can recover the price of non-consumed food.
  • c)
    This agreement cannot be enforced as Y did not accept the invitation in writing.
  • d)
    This agreement can be enforced since once accepted Y should have turned up for dinner.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Monika joshi answered
Explanation:

The principle states that a contract is an agreement enforceable by law. However, in this case, the agreement between X and Y is not a contract but just a social agreement.

The facts of the case state that X invited Y to her house for dinner, and Y accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Y's failure to attend, X filed a suit against Y for the price of non-consumed food.

Therefore, the correct answer is option 'A' - this agreement cannot be enforced as it is just a social agreement.

Reasoning:

There are several reasons why this agreement cannot be enforced as a contract:

1. No intention to create legal relations: The invitation for dinner was a social arrangement between X and Y, and there was no intention to create legal relations. Therefore, this does not qualify as a contract.

2. No consideration: A contract requires consideration, which is something of value exchanged between the parties. In this case, there was no consideration as the invitation for dinner was a social arrangement.

3. No offer and acceptance: For a contract to be valid, there must be an offer and acceptance. In this case, there was an invitation, but there was no offer and acceptance of any terms.

4. No written agreement: While a contract can be verbal or written, a written agreement is always better to avoid any confusion later. However, in this case, there was no written agreement.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the agreement between X and Y for dinner cannot be enforced as a contract as it was just a social arrangement with no intention to create legal relations, no consideration, no offer and acceptance, and no written agreement. Therefore, X cannot recover the price of non-consumed food from Y.

Principle: A contract obtained by misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the buyer.

Facts: Anand wants to sell his house. Anupama approaches him with an offer to buy the house and Anand shows her the house. The house is not in a very good condition and visibly requires repairs, without which it is uninhabitable. Anand does not tell anything regarding the required repairs to be livable. Anupama purchases the house for a huge consideration. Later on when she wants to move in her things into the house to start living she realizes the heavy repairs that the house requires urgently.
  • a)
    Anupama will not succeed because she has to be careful about what he is purchasing in all circumstances, unless the defects are concealed and cannot be seen or has been hidden
  • b)
    Anupama will succeed because Anand knowingly sold the house and he should have informed – Anupama about the condition of the house.
  • c)
    Anupama will succeed because she would never have purchased the house in case if she was told about the status of the house
  • d)
    A buyer always has the option to refuse performance of his part of the contract.
Correct answer is 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Ravikumar Agarwal answered
The answer was the second option which had lease agreement while this is sale.. and here answer is first option... explain the inconsistency

Facts: A promises B to drop prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery and B promises to restore the value of the things taken.
  • a)
    The agreement is valid
  • b)
    The agreement is voidable
  • c)
    The agreement is void as its object is unlawful
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Bijoy Pillai answered
A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the things taken. The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful. (h) A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the things taken. The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful."

 Legal Principle: Performance of a legal duty cannot be a consideration for a promise
Factual Situation: ‘A’s wallet is stolen by a thief. ‘A’ lodges a complaint in the police station. ‘A’ promises
to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the person who is able to apprehend the thief and get back his wallet. The
policeman’s servant ‘X’ apprehends the thief and gets back the wallet. ‘A’ refuses to pay ‘X’ the promised
Rs. 500.
Choose the correct option:
I. The servant is entitled to the reward
II. The policeman would have been entitled to the reward had he been the person to apprehend the thief
III. The policeman would be entitled to the reward even if he had not apprehended the thief
IV. The servant would not be entitled to the
  • a)
    I and III
  • b)
    I only
  • c)
    I, II and IV
  • d)
    III only
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Divyansh Tripathi answered
B) It was not X's duty to find the thief so legal principal does not apply here .
Hence X is entitled for the reward as promised.

Principle: A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
FACTS: Sajjan Singh, advanced money to his step-son, Ghantilal while Ghantilal was a minor. Ghantilal, however, looks upon Sajjan Singh as his own father. When Ghantilal came of age, Sajjan Singh obtained, by misuse of parental influence, from Ghantilal, a bond for a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. The contract clearly appears to be unconscionable.
Q. Upon whom will the burden of proof rest to prove the element of undue influence?
  • a)
    The burden of proof will rest on Ghantilal.
  • b)
    The burden of proof will rest on Sajjan Singh.
  • c)
    Undue influence has not been exercised at all because, in India, we consider it our duty to obey our parents.
  • d)
    Undue influence has been exercised because, though in India, we consider it our duty to obey our parents, we should not forget that Sajjan Singh was not Ghantilal’s father.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
The provisions of Contract Act provides that- In case of undue influence, it's the duty of the person who is suspected to have exercises undue influence over the plaintiff to prove that he did not do so, not the plaintiff. The burden of proof will rest on Sajjan Singh.

Principle 1 – An offer may be made to the world at large, but a contract can only be made with the person who performs the conditions of the offer and thereby accepts the offer.
Principle 2 – In order for a contract to be valid, there must be an intention to enter into legal relations.
Facts – Fight Anopheles Inc. is a company that manufactures mosquito repellant coils, sprays, etc. They have invented a new mosquito repellant cream that insulates specifically from the lethal bite of the Anopheles mosquito, the transmitting agent for malaria. In order to advertise and increase sales of this repellant cream, they put out an advertisement in the popular daily, The Logical Citizen. It claims that Fight Anopheles Inc. shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to anyone who contracts malaria despite having used the repellant cream. Further, it states that Rs. 50,000 has already been deposited at the Enigma Bank as a mark of Anopheles‘ sincerity in the matter. Ms. Dunbar comes across this advertisement, and is intrigued by the product. Hoping that it will keep the mosquito menace at bay, she purchases it and uses it every day, but contracts malaria nonetheless. Upset that she had put her faith in an absolutely ineffective product, she claims that the sum of Rs. 5000 be paid to her immediately.
Q.
Is Anopheles liable to pay?
a)Yes, Anopheles is liable to pay, as a valid contract gets formed when Ms. Dunbar performs the conditions of the offer and thereby accepts it.
b)Yes, Anopheles is liable to pay, as there has been an intention to contract.
c)Yes, Anopheles is liable to pay, as they have misled customers through the advertisement.
d)No, Anopheles would not be liable to pay. The advertisement is a mere puff, there is no intention to enter into legal relations.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Anand Menon answered
self explanatory

Principle – The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment.
Facts – Pradyuman is a mechanic working in the car mechanics shop owned by Abhjit. Pallavi wants her Audi A8 to be serviced and cleaned, as she is planning to go on a long drive soon. She drops off the car at the mechanic‘s, and asks Pradyuman to have it ready in two days. Pradyuman, while trying to drive the car to the jet-cleaning area, accidentally bumps it against the wall and a dent is created on the car door. When Pallavi comes to take her serviced car, she is livid at the condition in which it is returned to her, and wishes to sue for damages.
a)Only Pradyuman will be liable as he has caused the damage to the car.
b)Both Pradyuman and Abhijit will be jointly liable.
c)Abhijit will be liable to pay damages, as Pradhyuman is his servant and the damage was caused in the course of employment.
d)Pallavi will not be entitled to claim damages as she should not have given her car to a small mechanic such as Abhijit.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Pratibha jain answered
Principle of Vicarious Liability
In this scenario, we are dealing with the principle of vicarious liability, which states that an employer (master) is liable for the wrongful acts of an employee (servant) that occur in the course of employment.
Analysis of the Situation
- Employment Context: Pradyuman, the mechanic, was performing his job duties when he accidentally damaged Pallavi's car.
- Course of Employment: The act of driving the car to the jet-cleaning area was part of his responsibilities as a mechanic at Abhijit's shop.
Liability of the Parties
- Pradyuman's Liability: While Pradyuman caused the damage, his actions were within the scope of his employment.
- Abhijit's Liability: As the owner of the shop, Abhijit is responsible for the actions of his employee that occur during the performance of their work duties.
Conclusion
- Joint Liability: The correct answer is option 'C': Abhijit will be liable to pay damages because Pradyuman is his servant, and the damage occurred while he was performing his job responsibilities.
Importance of Vicarious Liability
- This principle ensures protection for third parties (like Pallavi) who suffer loss due to the actions of employees, thus promoting accountability in the employer-employee relationship.
In summary, Abhijit, as the employer, bears responsibility for the actions of his employee Pradyuman, which aligns with the principle of vicarious liability.

PRINCIPLE: Any agreement in absolute restraint of the marriage of any person is void.
FACTS: Zoya and Benazir are both married to Azhar. He dies in October 2012, reducing them both to the status of co-widows. When Azhar’s will is read out, they discover a clause which states that if either of the co-widows remarry, they would be deemed to have forfeited their claim to any property or maintenance. However, Benazir gets married in February, 2013 and claims her share of maintenance and property, from Azhar’s lawyer, claiming that any clause in restraint of marriage is void. Hence, she should be entitled to maintenance. Decide.
  • a)
    The clause in the will is valid and Benazir is not entitled to any maintenance
  • b)
    The clause is void, by virtue of being in restraint of marriage
  • c)
    Zoya should be given the authority to decide whether Benazir can claim maintenance or not
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
As now Benazir is married and  she is not entitled to claim anything from her previous husband or maintainance from his will.

Principle: A contract which is duly supported by real and lawful consideration is valid notwithstanding the fact that the consideration is inadequate. The quantum of consideration is for the parties to decide at the time of making a contract and not for the courts (to decide) when the contract is sought to be enforced. An agreement to which the consent merely because the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void inadequate. But the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the court in determining the question whether the consent of the promisor was freely given.

Facts: ‘A’ agrees to sell his mobile phone worth Rs. 20000 for Rs. 100 only to ‘B’ A’s consent is freely given.
a)There is contract between ‘A’ and ‘B’
b)There is no contract between ‘A’ and ‘B’ because a mobile phone worth Rs. 20000 cannot be sold for just Rs. 100.
c)There is no contract between ‘A’ and ‘B’ because a mobile phone worth Rs. 20000 cannot be sold for just Rs. 1000
d)None of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Rohith Shivakumar answered
A) as mentioned above in the principle , there must be free consent (thus satisfied : as mentioned in the facts ) and it is also mentioned in the principle that consideration is essential , the quantum is not important . it is not necessary that the amount should be adequate enough .

Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.
Facts – Mr. Akhil lives in a locality that lies just off the main road, which supports heavy traffic and is one of the most important roads in his city. The street on which his house is located is, however, quiet and peaceful, and Akhil is pleased to live there. One day, some road repair works are undertaken on the main road, and as a result, the municipal authorities decide to divert the traffic through the street on which Akhil resides. Akhil is greatly disturbed and annoyed by the constant sound of the vehicles, honking, and traffic jams along the narrow street. He wishes to sue the municipal authorities for the nuisance caused by this diversion of traffic.
Q.
Will he succeed?
a)Yes, Akhil will succeed, as his legal right to a peaceful environment is violated by the constant noise of the vehicles.
b)Yes, Akhil will succeed, as his mental peace has been affected by the act of the municipal authorities.
c)No, Akhil has no legal right to enjoy a peaceful street, so there has been no violation of a legal right, despite actual damage. So, he cannot succeed in a tortious claim.
d)Facts are inadequate to decide.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Gitanjali Dey answered
No legal rights have been violated, hence, there would be no tortuous liability, despite actual damage being caused

Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterwards wants to file a suit against Mr. X.
 
  • a)
    Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered into contract.
  • b)
    Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound state of mind at the time of contract.
  • c)
    Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract.
  • d)
    None of these
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Rohit Mohan answered
Answer might be A, as the question itself says 
"X enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind."

A agrees to pay B Rs. 1000 if the two straight lines should enclose a space           
  • a)
    The agreement is void           
  • b)
    The agreement is not void           
  • c)
    Either a or b           
  • d)
    None of them
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Dia Mehta answered
A agrees to pay B 1,000 rupees if two straight lines should enclose a space. The agreement is void. Contingent agreements to do or not to do anything, if an impossible event happens, are void, whether the impossibility of the event is known or not to the parties to the agreement at the time when it is made. 

Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.
Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.
Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.
Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.
Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.
Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.
Facts – Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist, and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections, and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.
Q. 
The discrimination here is based on her caste. Therefore, her fundamental right in this regard has been violated. 
Have the fundamental rights of Nirmala been violated in this instance?
a)Yes, as she was denied the post based on the fact that she was Brahmin and therefore ineligible.
b)No, as the post required an SC/ ST candidate,and the law does not prevent unequals from being treated unequally.
c)The facts as to the reason for discrimination are inadequate.
d)Yes, the very requirement of an SC/ ST candidate for the post was discriminatory.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Ayush Roy answered
The discrimination here is based on her caste. Therefore, her fundamental right in this regard has been violated. 

Principle: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.
Facts: Rajdeep, a shipping magnate and wildlife enthusiast entered into an agreement with Karan as per which the latter was be paid Rupees five lacs in addition to expenses incurred by him if he caught a live anaconda in the Gir Forest area of India within a period of one year from the date of agreement. It is common knowledge that anaconda is endemic to South America.
  • a)
    The agreement is valid. Both will have to honour their commitments.
  • b)
    The agreement is void.
  • c)
    Agreement to catch a wild animal is illegal and hence punishable.
  • d)
    Such an attempt can prove to be very dangerous.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
The correct option is B as according to the principle applied the act itself is void 

“A” promise to give money or money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event is called
  • a)
      Lottery 
  • b)
    wager 
  • c)
      Chit 
  • d)
     bet
Correct answer is 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Samarth Sharma answered
Wagering Agreement (Section30)
literally the word `wager’ means `a bet’ something stated to be lost or won on the result of a doubtful issue, and, therefore, wagering agreement are nothing but ordinary betting agreements. Thus where A and B pay A Rs.100 or where C and D enter into an agreement that on tossing up a coin ,if it falls head upwards C will pay D Rs.50 and if it falls tail upwards D will pay Rs.50 to C, there is a wagering
agreement. According to Sir William Anson, a wagering agreement, is a promise to give money or money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event is called wager .

Legal Principle: Performance of a legal duty cannot be a consideration for a promise
Factual Situation: ‘A’s wallet is stolen by a thief. ‘A’ lodges a complaint in the police station. ‘A’ promises to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the person who is able to apprehend the thief and get back his wallet. The policeman’s servant ‘X’ apprehends the thief and gets back the wallet. ‘A’ refuses to pay ‘X’ the promised
Rs. 500.
Choose the correct option:
I. The servant is entitled to the reward
II. The policeman would have been entitled to the reward had he been the person to apprehend the thief
III. The policeman would be entitled to the reward even if he had not apprehended the thief
IV. The servant would not be entitled to the reward
a)I and III
b)I only
c)I, II and IV
d)III only
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Rudrani Bose answered
Yes, X is entitled to the money, because, not only did A promise a reward of Rs.500 to the person who apprehends the thief, X is also a police man's servant, if X was a police man himself, A would not need to pay him.

Legal Principle 1: Acceptance of an offer is complete when the acceptance is put into the course of transmission so as to be out of the power of the acceptor
Legal Principle 2: Acceptance once completed, makes the agreement binding on both the parties
Facts: A accepts to buy B’s offer of his motor car for Rs. 4 Lakhs. The acceptance was put into e-mail. Unfortunately, when the e-mail was put, there is distortion as a result of which B is not in a position to really read what A has written
 
  • a)
    Both the parties are bound to perform their part of the agreement
  • b)
    Nobody is bound to perform the agreement
  • c)
    A is bound to perform the agreement but not B
  • d)
    B is bound to perform the agreement but not A
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Smita gupta answered
Legal Principles:
1. Acceptance of an offer is complete when the acceptance is put into the course of transmission so as to be out of the power of the acceptor.
2. Acceptance once completed, makes the agreement binding on both the parties.

Facts:
A accepts to buy B's offer of his motor car for Rs. 4 Lakhs. The acceptance was put into an email. Unfortunately, when the email was sent, there was distortion, as a result of which B is not in a position to really read what A has written.

Conclusion:
In this case, the legal principle of acceptance of an offer is complete when the acceptance is put into the course of transmission so as to be out of the power of the acceptor applies. Therefore, A is bound to perform the agreement as the acceptance was put into the course of transmission, and once completed, the agreement becomes binding on both parties. The fact that there was distortion in the email does not affect the completion of acceptance. Both parties are bound to perform their part of the agreement as the acceptance was communicated, and the agreement became binding. Hence, option 'A' is the correct answer.

Principle: A contract obtained by misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the buyer.
Facts: Anand wants to sell his house. Anupama approaches him with an offer to buy the house and Anand shows her the house. The house is not in a very good condition and visibly requires repairs, without which it is uninhabitable. Anand does not tell anything regarding the required repairs to be livable. Anupama purchases the house for a huge consideration. Later on when she wants to move in her things into the house to start living she realizes the heavy repairs that the house requires urgently.
  • a)
    Anupama will not succeed because she has to be careful about what he is purchasing in all circumstances, unless the defects are concealed and cannot be seen or has been hidden
  • b)
    Anupama will succeed because Anand knowingly sold the house and he should have informed – Anupama about the condition of the house.
  • c)
    Anupama will succeed because she would never have purchased the house in case if she was told about the status of the house
  • d)
    A buyer always has the option to refuse performance of his part of the contract.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Dia Mehta answered
The correct answer is A Anand didn't misrepresent anything.as he already told about his house condition  Anand didn't tell anything positive about house.

Principles: 1) An agreement enforceable by law is a contract
2) 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
3) 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 absence of consideration renders the contract unenforceable.
Q
A agrees to pay B Rs. 1000 if the two straight lines should enclose a space           
  • a)
    The agreement is void           
  • b)
    The agreement is not void           
  • c)
    Either a or b           
  • d)
    None of them
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Kholi Robert answered
This question is meant to test how well can you judge/deduce. Given that there should be mutual consideration i.e if A do something for B, then B should also do something for A. While in question there is no mention of B doing for A if the condition is not met. Hence the agreement is void.
Also minimum lines to form a close loop is 3.

Directions: Questions 21-24 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.
Principle 1 – An offer is made when one person signifies to another, his willingness to do or not do something, with a view to obtaining that person‘s assent.
Principle 2 – When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted.
Principle 3 - When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Principle 4 – An agreement without consideration is not enforceable under law.
Principle 5 – Parties to a contract must agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
Principle 6 – Parties competent to contract must be major, and of sound mind.
Facts – Sonia is a gardener in the mansion of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor is extremely fond of his pet dog, Cooper. One day, Kapoor realizes that Cooper is missing from his kennel. He is frantic with worry, and sends Sonia on a quest for the dog. Sonia sets out, pastes notices in public places and enquires about the dog. She has been instructed to return only if she finds the dog. In the meantime, Kapoor announces in the popular newspaper, The Statesman, that Cooper
is missing, and that anybody who finds the Labrador and brings him back would be awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000. The next day, Kaza brings a brown Labrador with him and claims the reward. Mr. Kapoor immediately realizes that the dog is not Cooper, and refuses to pay the sum. Kaza asserts that the dog is named Cooper, is a brown Labrador resembling the picture in the newspaper, and since he has accepted the offer by bringing the dog, there is a valid contract formed, and Kapoor is bound to pay the consideration of Rs. 10,000. Three days later, Sonia manages to find Cooper in a nearby park, and brings him back home. Kapoor is overjoyed, and raises Sonia‘s salary from Rs. 12,000 per month to Rs. 20,000. Sonia then discovers the notice in the newspaper, goes to Kapoor, and claims the reward. Kapoor refuses to pay, as he as already given her an increment in salary.
Que: Suppose that Harsha, Kapoor‘s neighbour,while taking a walk in the park, recognizes Cooper and brings him back. He is unaware of the newspaper notice. Can he claim the reward?
a)No, he cannot claim the reward, as there has been no knowledge of the offer, and hence no acceptance.
b)Yes, he can claim the reward, as he could have been expected to know of the offer,being Kapoor‘s neighbour.
c)No, he cannot claim the reward, as there is no contract.
d)He can claim the reward, as the offer was a public one, and it must be assumed that the offer is made to the world at large. It does not matter if every person has specific knowledge of the offer. It suffices that the offer was made in a newspaper.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Shanaya Sharma answered
Since his neighbor is unknown of the offer made by Kappor so he has no knowledge of it and thus no acceptance and an offer is meant only when the other accepts it (principle 2). So he cannot claim the reward.

Principle: when one party to the contract is in such relation with the other party as to be able to dominate his/her will, and uses this superior position to obtain the other party consent to a contract, she is said to have exercise undue influence.
Facts: A’s grandfather has 3 sons one of them being A’s father. A’s grandfather gifts his best properties to A. A’s two uncles sue their father i.e. A’s grandfather stating that his consent to the gift has been obtained through the exercise of undue influence.
a) The gift is invalid because the grandson is in a position to exercise his domination based on the natural love and affection with his grandfather regards him
b) The gift is valid because no such relation, domination or undue influence can be shown in the facts
c) The gift is invalid because the grandfather is obliged to distribute all his properties equally between all offspring
d) The gift valid because the grandfather has the freedom to do as he pleases with his properties
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Nishtha Pandey answered
In the given fact their is no clue given that shows grandfather was influenced by which he induced to act(gift his property to A), it was his own free will.So, yes it was an act without any undue influence.

Express contract means a contract made by
  • a)
    words either spoken or written.
  • b)
     documents
  • c)
    both words and documents
  • d)
    all of the above.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Kavya Sharma answered
contract
A legally binding agreement between two parties wherein the terms are clearly defined either orally or in writing.
An express contract is a contract with clearly stated terms. This differs from an implied contract, which is a contract that is believed to exist based on the behaviors of those involved. The terms that are explicitly defined within an express contract include the quantity of goods delivered (or specific services rendered), as well as the time period during which the transaction is expected to take place.

Principle: Agreements in restraint of marriage is void.
Facts: ‘X’ enters into an agreement, with ‘Y’ where under he agrees not to marry anybody else other than a person whose name starts with the letter ‘A’ and promises to pay Rs. 100000 to ‘Y’ of the (‘X’) breaks this agreement.
  • a)
    There is a contract between ‘X’ and ‘Y’
  • b)
    There is a contract between ‘X’ and ‘Y’ which voidable at the option of ‘Y’.
  • c)
    There is an agreement between ‘X’ and ‘Y’ which can be enforced by the court of law
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Harsh Yadav answered
The agreement is valid since the provided condition is not completely restrictive of marriage of 'X'. He can marry a person whose name starts with 'A', under the agreement. Hence, he is also liable to pay 100000 to Y

Mistake of both the parties about the subject matter renders an agreement
  • a)
    Voidable
  • b)
    Unavoidable
  • c)
    Void
  • d)
    Valid
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
When both parties of a contract are under a mistake of fact essential to the agreement, such a mistake is what we call a bilateral mistake. Here both the parties have not consented to the same thing in the same sense, which is the definition of consent. Since there is an absence of consent altogether the agreement is void.

PRINCIPLE: A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.
FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.
  • a)
    Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Seth
  • b)
    Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran off
  • c)
    Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partners
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Ankita Singh answered
Option A is correct that aditya and suraj are not under any obligation to pay the seth because when ravi take money from seth ,they are not partners at that time.

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
  • a)
    J will not succeed because it is his lookout to ensure that he is not entering into a contract that is disadvantageous for him
  • b)
    J will succeed because S knowing that the house was required for immediate occupation, ought to have informed J as the state of the house
  • c)
    J will succeed because J would never have signed the lease if S had mentioned that the house was inhabitable
  • d)
    None of them
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Rajendra Advocate answered
It is the buyers responsibility to check whether the house is in perfect condition or not. however in the facts it is given that the repairs required to house are visible. So the answer should be A

Principle 1 – An offer is the final expression of willingness by the offeror to be bound by his offer, should the other party choose to accept it.
Principle 2 – An invitation to offer merely invites others to make offers that one may or may not accept. It is not an offer in itself.
Principle 3 – Acceptance needs to be communicated to the offeror.
Facts – Lockhart writes to his closest friend and aide, Helga, ―I wish to sell my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons.‖
He then sends a letter to Sirius – ―Sirius, I have been meaning to sell my book, the one that chronicles our adolescent experiments in love and other adventures. What do you think?‖
He also writes to Harry – ―Harry, I am your biggest fan. Would you like to buy my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons?‖ and to Ron ―Ron, I see that you are in need of advice on matters of the heart. Why don‘t you buy my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons? Willing to offer a discount of 20%.‖
Harry sees the letter, makes a mental note of Lockhart‘s message, and throws the letter in the dustbin. He intends to buy the book, and makes a reminder note to write back to Lockhart and send him a sum of 200 Galleons.
Ron receives the letter and immediately writes back to Lockhart saying that he would like to buy the book. He posts the letter, the letter reaches Lockhart, but he then decides not to offer the discount or even sell the book to Ron.
Question:Has Lockhart made Sirius an offer?

a)Yes, by informing Sirius of the desire to sell,he makes an offer to sell the book.
b)No, this is not an offer. He has merely asked Sirius what he thinks of Lockhart‘s desire to sell the book.
c)Can‘t say if this is an offer or invitation to offer.
d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Ram chandra answered
Understanding the Nature of Offer
In the context of contract law, it is crucial to distinguish between an offer and an invitation to offer. Lockhart's communication with Sirius serves as a perfect example of this distinction.
Invitation to Offer vs. Offer
- Definition of Offer: An offer is a clear expression of willingness to enter into a contract, which, upon acceptance, creates a binding agreement.
- Definition of Invitation to Offer: An invitation to offer seeks to elicit offers from others; it is not intended to create a binding agreement on its own.
Analysis of Lockhart's Letter to Sirius
- Content of the Letter: Lockhart writes to Sirius, "What do you think?" This phrase indicates that he is not asserting a willingness to be bound by an offer to sell the book.
- Lack of Commitment: By merely asking for Sirius's opinion, Lockhart does not communicate a definite offer. Instead, he invites Sirius to express his interest or make an offer.
Conclusion
- Correct Answer: Therefore, the correct interpretation of Lockhart's communication to Sirius is option B: No, this is not an offer. He has merely asked Sirius what he thinks of Lockhart's desire to sell the book.
In summary, Lockhart has not made an offer to Sirius, as the language used does not convey a clear willingness to be bound by contractual terms.

PRINCIPLE 1: An agreement entered into with a minor is void ab initio. Any agreement entered into with a major is valid.
PRINCIPLE 2: A minor is anyone who is below 15 years of age.
PRINCIPLE 3: A contract is incomplete without consideration.
FACTS: Rebecca was born in 1997 in a small town in Karnataka. She is from an affluent family, but her parents are very strict and don’t give her enough pocket money to meet her expenses. Hence, she has to manage her income in other ways. On one occasion, she enters into an agreement with Uncle Mario, her father’s friend, to sell her old cell phone, which is perfect working condition. Mario hands over Rs. 2000 in advance as consideration for the deal.
Q. Is the contract entered into between the two valid?
  • a)
    No, because an advance payment is not sufficient consideration
  • b)
    Yes, because all the elements of a valid contract are present
  • c)
    No, because Rebecca is below 18 years of age
  • d)
    Insufficient information
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Samta garg answered
Understanding the Validity of the Contract
In the scenario involving Rebecca and Uncle Mario, we need to analyze the validity of their contract based on the provided principles.
Age of Majority
- According to Principle 2, a minor is defined as anyone below 15 years of age.
- Rebecca was born in 1997, which means she was 25 years old in the current context. As such, she is not a minor.
Agreement Validity
- Principle 1 states that an agreement with a minor is void ab initio, while any agreement with a major is valid.
- Since Rebecca is above the age of 15 and thus considered a major, the agreement she entered into with Uncle Mario is valid.
Consideration
- Principle 3 states that a contract is incomplete without consideration.
- In this case, Uncle Mario provided Rs. 2000 in advance as consideration for the sale of the cell phone, fulfilling the requirement for consideration.
Conclusion
- Therefore, since all elements of a valid contract are satisfied, including the parties' capacity (Rebecca being a major) and the existence of consideration, the correct answer is indeed option 'b': Yes, because all the elements of a valid contract are present.
This assessment confirms that the contract between Rebecca and Uncle Mario is valid and enforceable.

Mere silence is no fraud unless           
  • a)
    the silence is deceptive
  • b)
    there is a change in the circumstances to be brought to the notice of other party
  • c)
    there is a duty to speak
  • d)
    all of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Samarth Sharma answered
At the same time it may be mentioned here that Explanation to Section 17 lays down that mere silence as to facts does not amount to fraud. It states that – mere silence as to facts does not amount o fraud unless it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak or when his silence is equivalent to speech.

Principle 1: A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty one.
Principle 2: A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
Principle 3: In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming the Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.

Chaaru is justified in challenging the sale transaction because:
  • a)
    Bandita is of unsound mind and is not in a position to make rational decisions.
  • b)
    Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she will be treated as a minor, as Chaaru is her guardian.
  • c)
    Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she cannot sell the land without the permission of her mother.
  • d)
    Though Bandita is eighteen year old she should not be treated like a person who has attained the ageof majority.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Parul Roy answered
Read principal 1..when a minor is administered by a guardian the age of maturity is 21.

A contract to which a minor is a party, is known as:
  • a)
    Void ab initio
  • b)
    Voidable at the option of minor
  • c)
    Voidable at the option of other party    
  • d)
    Valid
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Nishant Upadhyay answered
Minors and Indian Contract Act, 1872. According to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person domiciled in India who is under the age of eighteen years, is a minor. Minor Agreements: A Minor is an incompetent person to enter into a contract subject to certain exceptions.

Principle 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.
Principle 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right.
Facts – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply  for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason. Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme.
Q. Will the banker still be liable for his act?
a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason,and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered,he will still be liable.
b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.
c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.
d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Gitanjali Reddy answered
Self explanatory. There need not be actual damage, for a claim in the law of Torts. If there has been a violation of a legal right, the claim would stand. Refusal to encash a cheque, despite having the sufficient amount would amount to the violation of a legal right

Legal Principle 1: Acceptance of an offer is complete when the acceptance is put into the course of transmission so as to be out of the power of the acceptor
Legal Principle 2: Acceptance once completed, makes the agreement binding on both the parties
Facts: A accepts to buy B’s offer of his motor car for Rs. 4 Lakhs. The acceptance was put into e-mail. Unfortunately, when the e-mail was put, there is distortion as a result of which B is not in a position to really read what A has written
  • a)
    Both the parties are bound to perform their part of the agreement
  • b)
    Nobody is bound to perform the agreement
  • c)
    A is bound to perform the agreement but not B
  • d)
    B is bound to perform the agreement but not A
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
Both parties are bound for agreement as the acceptance is put in course of transmission by 'A' by e-mail and is not in the power of 'A'.

Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer.
 
  • a)
    X can be held liable for fraud
  • b)
    X can be held liable for misrepresentation
  • c)
    X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse
  • d)
    X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Apoorv gupta answered
Explanation:

The principle states that mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.

In this case, X sells a horse which he knows to be of unsound state of mind to Y, but he says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. The correct answer is 'C' i.e. X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse.

Reasoning:

To understand why the correct answer is 'C', let's look at the following points:

• X did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse. He did not make any false representation about the horse's state of mind.

• The principle states that mere silence is not a fraud unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination, it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak.

• In this case, X did not have any duty to speak about the horse's mental state unless Y asked him about it. Y did not ask X about the horse's mental state, and therefore X did not have a duty to speak.

• Therefore, X cannot be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation in this case.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the correct answer is 'C' i.e. X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse. The principle of mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination, it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.

Principle 1 – Whosoever causes the death of anyperson by a rash or negligent act is liable to bepunished for culpable homicide.
Principle 2 – Negligence refers to the gross andculpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable careand caution against harm to either the general publicor to a particular individual.
Facts – Aayush is driving back home from a busy dayat work. He stops by at a grocery store to buy milk,eggs and strawberries. The street is a busy one, andAayush leaves his car with the engine running,thinking that he would be able to return with thegrocery in no time at all. While he was in the store,some curious children happen to notice that the car isunlocked and the engine is running. They release thehandbrake while playing in the car. The car crashesinto a person who was nearby, who sustains a serioushead injury and subsequently dies.
Ques Can Aayush be held liable for culpablehomicide?
  • a)
    No, Aayush cannot be held liable, as there isno guilty intent on his part, to kill the personstanding nearby.
  • b)
    No, Aayush has no committed any act tocause the person’s death. It is the childrenwho released the handbrake who must beheld liable.
  • c)
    Yes, Aayush can be held liable. He has beengrossly negligent by leaving the car with theengine running on a busy street.
  • d)
    None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Notes Wala answered
Aayush had left the car unattended with the engine running, despite the fact that the street was a busy one. He has been grossly negligent, and has not taken reasonable care and precaution by at least turning the engine off. Hence, he will be held liable. 
 

Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.
Facts – Ayush has a shop that offers printing, Xerox, and book binding services. In the shop, he also sells notebooks, stationery, printing inks, paper and other such items. He has a big board outside his shop displaying all the things he deals in, and this board is instrumental in attracting customers, who would otherwise be unaware that he sold such things. His shop is situated in a narrow street with several other stores. Rajesh owns a book store next to him, and he installs a display shelf with all the titles he sells, outside his shop in order to woo customers. This shelf obscures the view to Ayush‘s board, and there is a decrease in the number of customers who buy from him. Ayush decides to sue Rajesh and claim damages.
a)Ayush can get damages, as he has suffered damage. The display shelf of Rajesh obscured the view of Ayush‘s board, and Rajesh had no right to do that.
b)Ayush can claim damages, but it is up to the court to grant them, as the loss suffered is not so substantial. The shelf did not entirely block the view to the board.
c)Ayush cannot claim damages in this case, as his legal rights have not been violated by Rajesh in setting up a display shelf.
d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Tejas Basu answered
Self explanatory. The setting up of a shelf is well within the rights of Rajesh, and does not infringe the legal rights of Ayush in any manner. 

‘A’ contracts to pay ‘B’ Rs. 1,000 if the B’s house is burnt. This is a 
  • a)
    Contingent contract
  • b)
    Wagering contract
  • c)
    Voidable contract
  • d)
    Special type of contract
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Dia Mehta answered
The correct option is A.
A "contingent contract" is a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen.

Chapter doubts & questions for Contract / Civil Law - 4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG 2025 is part of CLAT exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.

Chapter doubts & questions of Contract / Civil Law - 4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG in English & Hindi are available as part of CLAT exam. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG

283 videos|1003 docs|331 tests

Top Courses CLAT

Related CLAT Content

© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup on EduRev and stay on top of your study goals
10M+ students crushing their study goals daily