Question Description
Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: A principle(s) and a fact situation are given in questions decide, only on the basis of the principles.Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Coercion: Coercion is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.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. When consent to a contract is caused by Coercion, then the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.Facts: Rahul goes to a mine to purchase some tonnes of the high grade ceal being mined there. He meets the mine-owner Karan and they start negotiating on the prices. They are unable to reach a meeting point and a major altercation ensues between them. At this, Rahul takes out his gun and at gun point makes Karan sell him the coal at his own price. Later Rahul realizes that the coal sent by Karan is very low grade coal which is next to useless. He sues him and asks for compensation for loss suffereda)Karan is liable since he sold coal of a quality other than the one he represented he wanted to sellb)Karan is not liable because the coal was taken from him at gunpointc)If Karan decides to hold the contract void, he may escape liability. Else, he'll be liabled)Both Karan and Rahul are simultaneously liable to each otherCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.