Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction:Choose the correct alternative, ke...

Join the Discussion on the App

Direction:

Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:

Question:

Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.

Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that act

Facts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.

a)
B is liable for breach of contract.
b)
B is liable for breach of obligation.
c)
B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.
d)
None of the above.

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

FREE This question is part of

Practice Test for PU LLB - 3

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the princip...

The prior agreement of B, with the temple trust would not be a contract, as it is that relating to sale of prohibited items, which means that the doctrine of frustration cannot apply. Hence (a).

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

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Agreement without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered, or it is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation.In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.The Contract Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made any such agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty of either of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea behind this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to marry as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having both personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation entered into at any point of time.Any agreement between the two parties that debars either or both of them from going to a court of law in case of non-compliance of the contract, is a void agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act says that any agreement that restricts an aggrieved party from enforcing his rights to approach a relevant court or tribunal in case of a breach of contract, or limits the time within which he may do so, is a void agreement. There are two exceptions to Section 28, i.e. a future dispute or a past dispute can be referred to arbitration and an agreement stating the limit of time as per the Limitation Act, 1963.An agreement may be uncertain either because the terms in it are ambiguous or vague or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or indefinite which cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty of the intention of the parties, then there is no contract enforceable by law.The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30.Q. Shriya signs a contract to sell to Jaya 5 sets of ornaments for 5 lakhs. Decide.

View answer

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

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Agreement without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered, or it is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation.In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.The Contract Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made any such agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty of either of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea behind this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to marry as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having both personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation entered into at any point of time.Any agreement between the two parties that debars either or both of them from going to a court of law in case of non-compliance of the contract, is a void agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act says that any agreement that restricts an aggrieved party from enforcing his rights to approach a relevant court or tribunal in case of a breach of contract, or limits the time within which he may do so, is a void agreement. There are two exceptions to Section 28, i.e. a future dispute or a past dispute can be referred to arbitration and an agreement stating the limit of time as per the Limitation Act, 1963.An agreement may be uncertain either because the terms in it are ambiguous or vague or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or indefinite which cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty of the intention of the parties, then there is no contract enforceable by law.The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30.Q. Amir finds Riya's wallet and returns it to her. Riya promises to give Amir Rs. 500 as a reward. Decide.

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Agreement without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered, or it is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation.In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.The Contract Act was the first law to be placed in India which expressly made any such agreement, which in its effect would result in restraining the liberty of either of the parties to marry as per their wish, void. The fundamental idea behind this provision was to ensure that the citizens did not lose their right to marry as per their choice, which is an essential part of a civil society having both personal and social significance, due to some contractual obligation entered into at any point of time.Any agreement between the two parties that debars either or both of them from going to a court of law in case of non-compliance of the contract, is a void agreement. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act says that any agreement that restricts an aggrieved party from enforcing his rights to approach a relevant court or tribunal in case of a breach of contract, or limits the time within which he may do so, is a void agreement. There are two exceptions to Section 28, i.e. a future dispute or a past dispute can be referred to arbitration and an agreement stating the limit of time as per the Limitation Act, 1963.An agreement may be uncertain either because the terms in it are ambiguous or vague or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or indefinite which cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty of the intention of the parties, then there is no contract enforceable by law.The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not define wager or a wagering agreement. It only states that agreements by way of the wager will be void and no action can lie to contracting parties to recover anything or claim performance of the wagering agreements. A wagering agreement has the characteristic of a contingent contract but is not enforceable by Section 30.Q. Gopi entered into a promise under seal that Geeta will marry no one and she agreed to a penalty of paying him Rs. 1,00,000 within three months of marrying anyone else. Decide.

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

Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction:Choose the correct alternative, keeping in mind the principle(s), if any:Question:Principle 1: All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.Principle 2: The Doctrine of Frustration says that if any act, which was to be performed under a contractual obligation, becomes unlawful or impossible to perform, and which the promisor could not prevent, then such a contract will be void to the extent of that actFacts: A, a pharmaceutical company entered into an agreement with B, a licensed farmer, for sale of half of the medical cannabis grown in B’s fields. A couple of days later, half of B’s field was savaged by locusts. In the light of the same, B declined to discharge his obligations which stemmed out of the contract, citing that he had a prior contract with a shiva temple trust, which provided its priests with marijuana and therefore that contract took precedence. A sued B. Decide.a)B is liable for breach of contract.b)B is liable for breach of obligation.c)B is not liable because the doctrine of frustration would apply.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam