Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions:The question is based on the reaso...

Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.
Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.
There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.
Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.
According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.

Q. X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?

a)
Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.
b)
No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.
c)
Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.
d)
No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or fa...

According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage, except that of a minor are void. Here, X has made an agreement in restraint of marriage, hence it will be void.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X (a minor boy) agrees with Y (a minor girl) that he wont marry Z for a consideration of Rs. 1000. Is this a valid agreement?

View answer

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.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jack Ryan, who runs his business in the US, got his trademark registered there. Mr. Osama, who runs his business in India, started using a trademark same as that of Mr. Jack Ryan. Now, Mr. Jack Ryan wants to pursue infringement action. Decide.

View answer

Directions: 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.Section 14( c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 states all the rights that a creator of an artistic work has. They include right to reproduce, right to make the work public, and right to grant permission to include the work in movies or films and also for any adaptation of the work. Any work which violates the rights of the creator mentioned under the Act shall be an act of infringement on the copyright of the original work. Any work which has similarity to the original work but it is still new on its own, then such works shall not be considered as works which infringe copyright. In order to prove copyright violation, reproduction of the original work must be in such a way that there must be an exact or substantial reproduction of the original matter, physically using that original matter as a model as distinguished from an independent production of the same thing, or producing it from ideas stored in the mind, if those ideas were borrowed from the alleged infringed work.In the case R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, the Supreme Court observed that the best way to examine whether there has been copyright infringement is to see if a third party who reads or views the work thinks mistakenly that the latter is related to the former. If the ratio of R. G. Anands case is considered, then generally a third party who views a meme wont relate the same to the original work. But is this test sufficient enough to find out whether a meme is infringing copyright laws? There might be chances that the meme may be portrayed in such a way that a third party looking at it might think of it as something related to the original work. Sometimes memes degrade the original work and the owner of such work can bring a suit against such infringing material in order to stop such memes from spreading. In such cases, it will be clear and evident that such memes are infringing the copyright laws. But this might not be the case as the fair use doctrine can save the meme maker from being punished under the law.In this way, the freedom of expression and the right of a copyright holder remain parallel without affecting each other.The fair use doctrine is an essential part of the copyright law. It allows copyrighted work to be reproduced or used in a certain way. Unlike the Indian Copyright Act, the US Copyright Act provides for fair use defence.The defences include that the use is commercial or for non-profit. This checks if the use of work can be transformative or not and secondly the character or nature of copyrighted work, the amount of portion taken, and the consequence of such use on the market.Q.In 2000, WB Productions released a movie called Harry Potter, which was about a boys magical journey to a magic school. In 2008, Hari Ram Productions released a movie named Hari Putter, which was regarding a boys journey to a magical land. Now, WB Productions wants to claim copyright infringement. Decide whether their claim is valid.

View answer

Passage:In the 1850s, around the time the Indian Contract Act was about to be drafted, consideration was on its way to becoming a ‘mere technicality’ and could very well have ‘withered away altogether’. It should not be surprising then that framers of a midnineteenth century contract code, beginning tabula rasa, might have wished to fundamentally shake up the rules relating to consideration. Indeed, as Ibbetson argues, ‘a codifying system might legitimately have discarded consideration as inconsistent with the newly imposed legal model’ – an option ‘not open to the Common law.’ But like the ingenious common law reformers in England, the drafters continued to pay ‘lip service’ to the idea of consideration and the ‘reciprocity’ underlying it. They did indeed retain the traditional doctrine’s outer crust of reciprocity: an act or abstinence or promise on the ‘other side’, as it were, but they tweaked this in important ways. The framers of the Act, like the English Courts of the day, made it very easy to find consideration by defining it in capacious terms, which included any act or abstinence or promise, regardless of benefit or detriment. Perhaps, they too, like the Law Revision Committee, were mindful of the fact that a root and branch abolition of the doctrine might arouse ‘suspicion and hostility’ and hence decided to ‘prune away from the doctrine those aspects of it that create hardship’. They also provided that no question of adequacy of consideration could ever be raised. However, the definition under the Indian Contract Act did more than that – Section 2( d) had other elements that lent it the makings of marking the vanishing point of consideration.The definition of consideration under the Indian Contract Act, with its copula ‘at the desire of’, appears to have been calculated to preempt potential hair splitting over whether the consideration in any given case was indeed valuable in the ‘eye of the law’. The idea at play here is that of the subjective theory of value: that the Courts would not second-guess whether any consideration was actually valuable – what the promisor desired is what he got and that settled conclusively the matter of the value of consideration. This was one of the effects of the influence of the will theory on the traditional exchange model of consideration.Q.Which of these is true?

View answer

Passage:In the 1850s, around the time the Indian Contract Act was about to be drafted, consideration was on its way to becoming a ‘mere technicality’ and could very well have ‘withered away altogether’. It should not be surprising then that framers of a midnineteenth century contract code, beginning tabula rasa, might have wished to fundamentally shake up the rules relating to consideration. Indeed, as Ibbetson argues, ‘a codifying system might legitimately have discarded consideration as inconsistent with the newly imposed legal model’ – an option ‘not open to the Common law.’ But like the ingenious common law reformers in England, the drafters continued to pay ‘lip service’ to the idea of consideration and the ‘reciprocity’ underlying it. They did indeed retain the traditional doctrine’s outer crust of reciprocity: an act or abstinence or promise on the ‘other side’, as it were, but they tweaked this in important ways. The framers of the Act, like the English Courts of the day, made it very easy to find consideration by defining it in capacious terms, which included any act or abstinence or promise, regardless of benefit or detriment. Perhaps, they too, like the Law Revision Committee, were mindful of the fact that a root and branch abolition of the doctrine might arouse ‘suspicion and hostility’ and hence decided to ‘prune away from the doctrine those aspects of it that create hardship’. They also provided that no question of adequacy of consideration could ever be raised. However, the definition under the Indian Contract Act did more than that – Section 2( d) had other elements that lent it the makings of marking the vanishing point of consideration.The definition of consideration under the Indian Contract Act, with its copula ‘at the desire of’, appears to have been calculated to preempt potential hair splitting over whether the consideration in any given case was indeed valuable in the ‘eye of the law’. The idea at play here is that of the subjective theory of value: that the Courts would not second-guess whether any consideration was actually valuable – what the promisor desired is what he got and that settled conclusively the matter of the value of consideration. This was one of the effects of the influence of the will theory on the traditional exchange model of consideration.Q.What can be said rightly about the drafters of the Indian Contract Act?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct 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 Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct 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 Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct 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 Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: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.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.X contends that if he marries any other person except Y, he would give her 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. Is this a valid agreement?a)Yes, as it has all elements of a valid agreement.b)No, as it is the agreement in restraint of marriage.c)Yes, as he himself had imposed such a condition.d)No, as there is no proper consideration in this agreement.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam