Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect 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 > Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which ...

Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.

Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.

a)
Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.
b)
Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.
c)
The agreement between karthik and Talreja is void
d)
The agreement between karthik and Talreja is void

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capabl...

An agreement may be void if any of the following:

Made by incompetent parties (e.g., under the age of consent, incapacitated)
Has a material bilateral mistake
Has unlawful consideration (e.g., promise of sex)
Concerns an unlawful object (e.g., heroin)
Has no consideration on one side
Restricts a person from marrying or remarrying
Restricts trade Restricts legal proceedings
Has material uncertain terms Incorporates a wager, gamble, or bet
Contingent upon the happening of an impossible event
Requires the performance of impossible acts

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Every person has a lawful right to do or adopt any lawful profession, trade or business. If any agreement is made to put restriction over this right, that shall be an infringement of his fundamental right and shall also be against public policy. This is why the Indian Contract Act has specifically declared such agreements void.Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. One exception being that, one who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying in a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business. In India, trade has been in its infant and it is desirable to develop trade. Therefore, through the stringent provisions of Sec. 27 every agreement interfering with the right to trade has been specifically declared void. Public policy required that every citizen be allowed freedom to work for himself and should get the benefit of labour to himself or to the State. He should not enter into any agreement by which he may not be able to utilise his skill or talent for his benefit or to the benefit of his country. If he does so by an agreement, he shall not be allowed to do so.Indian law is very stringent on this point. It has invalidated many agreements on this around although they could have been allowed by the English Common Law. English Law has wavered from time to time with the changing conditions of the trade. Till some time in past it considered agreements in total restraint of trade to be valid, but in Nordenfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. It has been decided in 1894 that when restraint is reasonable, it should be allowed and the agreement be not declared void on the plea of opposed to public policy.According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to this section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.Q.Mike and Like run a business together. Mike wants to opt-out and start a new business. Mike wishes to sell his goodwill to Like. Like states in the agreement that Mike must not start the new business within the local limits for 1 year. Can Like enforce this agreement?

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

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

View answer

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

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect 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 Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after kartik started using the flat as his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m. as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.a)Karthik should continue to pay Rupees fifteen thousand p.m.b)Karthik should pay him Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.c)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidd)The agreement between karthik and Talreja is voidCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam