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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase andquot;to the prejudice of any person whateverandquot;, which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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...

Join the Discussion on the App

For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.
Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: 'Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake'. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasn't clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.
For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boy's parents by not allowing the corpse of the widow's husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.
The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.

Q. Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.

a)
The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.
b)
Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.
c)
Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.
d)
Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.

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

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 5

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

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

The offer was made via email, which means there was no delay in the proposal reaching the contractor. He had ample time. There is no indication that he had asked for a little more time for replying. There is no consensus-ad-idem as per the passage, therefore, Aman committed no wrong.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Abhi worked in a space research agency. He entered into a contract with Ravi that he would make him travel to Mars if he invested in his next space project. Ravi agreed and invested heavily in Abhis project. Abhi promised him that he would send him to Mars whenever they launched the project. Later, Ravi found that Abhis company had gone bankrupt and his Mars mission had never taken shape. Abhi told him that they were about to start the Mars project hoping that people would invest and they would recover the debt money, but a newspaper wrote that scientists are yet to discover the method to reach Mars and people took back their money. Ravi sued Abhi for influencing him in investing in an unenforceable contract. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.John and Manoj were in the business of trading computer equipment. John had regularly threatened Manoj physically so that he could be his exclusive business partner. The court passed a judgement invalidating the contract based on Manojs complaint alone. Was the court justified in doing so?

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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?

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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Adam, a customer, was forcibly not allowed by a shopkeeper to leave the store until he purchased the item he inquired about. Adam purchased the item and was allowed to leave. Which of the following, as per your understanding of the passage, is correct regarding the validity of the contract?

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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.A football player was interested in joining a certain club. However, his manager detained his assets until he joined another club of the managers choice. The player then entered into a contract with the club chosen for him and reached the premises. Is it too late now for him to change his mind?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat 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 very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.Q.Aman sent an email to a contractor for the building project and made an offer that if the latter completed the work within 12 months, Aman would give him 5% over and above the expected market rate. After a month, the contractor replied stating that he could complete the work in 10 months. However, he found that the offer had been given to another contractor two days before, without providing any information to him. Aman said that the contractor should have informed him well in time. The contractor sued Aman stating that the former had accepted the offer on the proposal made to him and Aman had breached the contract. Decide.a)The contractor was right on his part as he needed time to analyse his logistics and efficiency before accepting the offer, so Aman was wrong on his part.b)Aman did not breach the contract as had discretion to make multiple offers.c)Aman did not breach the contract as he had waited for the first contractor for a reasonable period of time.d)Aman breached the contract as he had not given prior information of revoking the offer.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam