All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Principle : A contract between the father and... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.
Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?
  • a)
    The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to him
  • b)
    The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bond
  • c)
    The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreement
  • d)
    The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantage
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of...
D is correct that agreement is not enforceable against shyam because ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantage.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of...
Explanation:

Contract of utmost good faith:
- A contract between a father and his son is considered a contract of utmost good faith.
- The law presumes that the father, being in a position of authority over his minor son, can dominate the will of the son.

Facts of the case:
- Ram advanced Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam.
- When Shyam became a major, Ram took advantage of his parental position and obtained a bond from Shyam for Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance.

Enforceability of the agreement:
- The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam for the full amount of Rs. 30000.
- Shyam can only be held liable for the actual amount of money advanced to him, which is Rs. 10000.
- Ram, as the father, misused his position of authority to obtain an unfair advantage over Shyam.
- Since Ram dominated Shyam's will in this contract, the agreement is not enforceable against Shyam for the excess amount of Rs. 20000.
- Therefore, the agreement is not enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000, and he can only be held liable for Rs. 10000.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Sir William Anson defines wager as a promise to give money or moneys worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event. The word wager means a bet something stated to be lost or won on the result of an uncertain issue; hence, wagering agreements are ordinary betting agreements. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30. A wagering agreement depends upon an uncertain event. The parties to the agreement have uncertainty in the minds about the determination of the event in one way or another. A wager may be based on a future event or even relate to a past event and the parties are not aware of the outcome of its happening. In a wagering agreement, two parties must have mutual chances of gain and loss, i.e. one party will win and the other will lose depending on the outcome of the event. Each party should stand to win or lose upon the determination of the contemplated event in reference to which the chance or risk is taken.It is not a wager where one party may win but cannot lose, or it may lose but cannot win, or if it can neither win nor lose. If one of the parties has the event in his own hands, the transaction lacks an essential ingredient of a wager. Neither party should have any interest in happening or non-happening of the event other than the sum he will win or lose. If either party has some other interest other than the sum he will win or lose, it will not be a wager. The parties to the contract should not have any control over the happening of the event one way or the other.The wagering agreement must contain a promise to pay money or moneys worth. Insurance contracts are contracts of indemnity. They are entered into, to safeguard the interest of one party to the contract. In this contract, the insured has insurable interest in the property or life. Hence, it is not a wager. Skill competitions are not said to be wagers since the winning of such events requires a substantial amount of skill and is not dependent on the probability of an uncertain event.Q.Abhi insures his factory against fire with XYZ insurance company. Abhi has to pay an insurance premium of Rs. 100 per month as per the terms of the contract. If the factory is destroyed by fire, XYZ will pay the actual amount of loss suffered by him. Decide.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Agreement without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered, or it is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation.In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.The Contract Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made any such agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty of either of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea behind this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to marry as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having both personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation entered into at any point of time.Any agreement between the two parties that debars either or both of them from going to a court of law in case of non-compliance of the contract, is a void agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act says that any agreement that restricts an aggrieved party from enforcing his rights to approach a relevant court or tribunal in case of a breach of contract, or limits the time within which he may do so, is a void agreement. There are two exceptions to Section 28, i.e. a future dispute or a past dispute can be referred to arbitration and an agreement stating the limit of time as per the Limitation Act, 1963.An agreement may be uncertain either because the terms in it are ambiguous or vague or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or indefinite which cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty of the intention of the parties, then there is no contract enforceable by law.The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Agreements without Consideration, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.A and B entered into a contract for the processing of 200 kg of cotton fiber of the highest quality, which would be used in Bs plant to make yarn. The contract stated that in the event of a default, the dispute would be resolved through arbitration rather than going to court. By processing cotton of poorer quality, A made a mistake. B sued, claiming that his legal rights had been violated. Decide.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Sir William Anson defines 'wager' as a promise to give money or money's worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event. The word 'wager' means 'a bet' something stated to be lost or won on the result of an uncertain issue; hence, wagering agreements are ordinary betting agreements. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30. A wagering agreement depends upon an uncertain event. The parties to the agreement have uncertainty in the minds about the determination of the event in one way or another. A wager may be based on a future event or even relate to a past event and the parties are not aware of the outcome of its happening. In a wagering agreement, two parties must have mutual chances of gain and loss, i.e. one party will win and the other will lose depending on the outcome of the event. Each party should stand to win or lose upon the determination of the contemplated event in reference to which the chance or risk is taken. It is not a wager where one party may win but cannot lose, or it may lose but cannot win, or if it can neither win nor lose. If one of the parties has the event in his own hands, the transaction lacks an essential ingredient of a wager. Neither party should have any interest in happening or non-happening of the event other than the sum he will win or lose. If either party has some other interest other than the sum he will win or lose, it will not be a wager. The parties to the contract should not have any control over the happening of the event one way or the other. The wagering agreement must contain a promise to pay money or money's worth. Insurance contracts are contracts of indemnity. They are entered into, to safeguard the interest of one party to the contract. In this contract, the insured has insurable interest in the property or life. Hence, it is not a wager. Skill competitions are not said to be wagers since the winning of such events requires a substantial amount of skill and is not dependent on the probability of an uncertain event.Q. Abhi insures his factory against fire with XYZ insurance company. Abhi has to pay an insurance premium of Rs. 100 per month as per the terms of the contract. If the factory is destroyed by fire, XYZ will pay the actual amount of loss suffered by him. Decide.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Agreement without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered, or it is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation.In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.The Contract Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made any such agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty of either of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea behind this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to marry as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having both personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation entered into at any point of time.Any agreement between the two parties that debars either or both of them from going to a court of law in case of non-compliance of the contract, is a void agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act says that any agreement that restricts an aggrieved party from enforcing his rights to approach a relevant court or tribunal in case of a breach of contract, or limits the time within which he may do so, is a void agreement. There are two exceptions to Section 28, i.e. a future dispute or a past dispute can be referred to arbitration and an agreement stating the limit of time as per the Limitation Act, 1963.An agreement may be uncertain either because the terms in it are ambiguous or vague or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or indefinite which cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty of the intention of the parties, then there is no contract enforceable by law.The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Agreements without Consideration, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.What does Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act state regarding agreements that restrict a party from approaching a court or tribunal in case of a breach of contract?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Agreement without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered, or it is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation.In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.The Contract Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made any such agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty of either of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea behind this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to marry as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having both personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation entered into at any point of time.Any agreement between the two parties that debars either or both of them from going to a court of law in case of non-compliance of the contract, is a void agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act says that any agreement that restricts an aggrieved party from enforcing his rights to approach a relevant court or tribunal in case of a breach of contract, or limits the time within which he may do so, is a void agreement. There are two exceptions to Section 28, i.e. a future dispute or a past dispute can be referred to arbitration and an agreement stating the limit of time as per the Limitation Act, 1963.An agreement may be uncertain either because the terms in it are ambiguous or vague or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or indefinite which cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty of the intention of the parties, then there is no contract enforceable by law.The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Agreements without Consideration, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, which of the following statements regarding agreements in restraint of marriage is true?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle : A contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in position to dominate the will of the party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.Facts : Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 10000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of Rs. 30000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?a)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam only for Rs. 10000, the actual amount on money advanced to himb)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam for Rs. 30000 because he has signed the bondc)The agreement is enforceable against Shyam because he was major at the time of agreementd)The agreement is not enforceable against Shyam because Ram has misused his position as father to obtain an unfair advantageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup