Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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: Read the following passage and a...

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.

Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.

a)
He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.
b)
He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.
c)
There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.
d)
None of the above

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When o...

Azad only texted the lowest price; he did not say that he was willing to sell the bike; hence, willingness to enter into a contract was absent. As there was no offer by Azad, he was justified in refusing to sell the bike.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

A fiduciary relationship is where one person places some type of trust, confidence, and reliance on another person. The person who is delegated trust and confidence would then have a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit and interest of the other party. The party who owes a duty to act for the best interest of the other party is called the fiduciary. The party to whom the duty is owed is called principal.Fiduciary relationships are created in many legal assignments such as contracts, wills, trusts, elections, corporate settings, The main purpose for fiduciary relationships is to establish an honest and trusted relationship between two parties where one party can rely and be confident that the other person is working for their interest and are not using their power for their own interest or the interest of a third party.In order to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship, it could be said that whether one has reposed confidence in another, i.e. whether a confidential relationship exists, is the material test to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship.For instance, in a transaction with the trustee who is under an obligation to protect the interest of the beneficiary, for whose benefit the confidence has been reposed on him can be stated as a fiduciary relationship. The basic principle of the trust is that the trustee generally acts voluntarily and is not paid for his services, though he may claim remuneration if he can show a specific entitlement of it. A trustee cannot be a purchaser of trust property, as he cannot be both seller and purchaser.In a fiduciary relationship induced by profit a person, in whom a confidence is reposed, gains profits by availing himself of his position. Equity refuses such a person (fiduciary) to claim for himself the profit which has been obtained by him in pursuance of his undertaking or discharge of his own obligation.Q. In a partnership business, if one of the partners dies, then the remaining partners have a fiduciary relationship to ensure the interests of the deceased partner towards his representatives. Does this statement hold true with respect to the passage above?

View answer

A fiduciary relationship is where one person places some type of trust, confidence, and reliance on another person. The person who is delegated trust and confidence would then have a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit and interest of the other party. The party who owes a duty to act for the best interest of the other party is called the fiduciary. The party to whom the duty is owed is called principal.Fiduciary relationships are created in many legal assignments such as contracts, wills, trusts, elections, corporate settings, The main purpose for fiduciary relationships is to establish an honest and trusted relationship between two parties where one party can rely and be confident that the other person is working for their interest and are not using their power for their own interest or the interest of a third party.In order to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship, it could be said that whether one has reposed confidence in another, i.e. whether a confidential relationship exists, is the material test to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship.For instance, in a transaction with the trustee who is under an obligation to protect the interest of the beneficiary, for whose benefit the confidence has been reposed on him can be stated as a fiduciary relationship. The basic principle of the trust is that the trustee generally acts voluntarily and is not paid for his services, though he may claim remuneration if he can show a specific entitlement of it. A trustee cannot be a purchaser of trust property, as he cannot be both seller and purchaser.In a fiduciary relationship induced by profit a person, in whom a confidence is reposed, gains profits by availing himself of his position. Equity refuses such a person (fiduciary) to claim for himself the profit which has been obtained by him in pursuance of his undertaking or discharge of his own obligation.Q. Profits obtained by a person in whom confidence is reposed, by using his skill and expertise, can be retained by such persons for their benefit. Determine the truth of this statement in the light of the above passage.

View answer

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. Based on the information provided in the passage, if there is a case in the District court, and there are precedents in the High Court and Supreme Court with contradictory outcomes, which outcome is binding on the District court?

View answer

A fiduciary relationship is where one person places some type of trust, confidence, and reliance on another person. The person who is delegated trust and confidence would then have a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit and interest of the other party. The party who owes a duty to act for the best interest of the other party is called the fiduciary. The party to whom the duty is owed is called principal.Fiduciary relationships are created in many legal assignments such as contracts, wills, trusts, elections, corporate settings, The main purpose for fiduciary relationships is to establish an honest and trusted relationship between two parties where one party can rely and be confident that the other person is working for their interest and are not using their power for their own interest or the interest of a third party.In order to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship, it could be said that whether one has reposed confidence in another, i.e. whether a confidential relationship exists, is the material test to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship.For instance, in a transaction with the trustee who is under an obligation to protect the interest of the beneficiary, for whose benefit the confidence has been reposed on him can be stated as a fiduciary relationship. The basic principle of the trust is that the trustee generally acts voluntarily and is not paid for his services, though he may claim remuneration if he can show a specific entitlement of it. A trustee cannot be a purchaser of trust property, as he cannot be both seller and purchaser.In a fiduciary relationship induced by profit a person, in whom a confidence is reposed, gains profits by availing himself of his position. Equity refuses such a person (fiduciary) to claim for himself the profit which has been obtained by him in pursuance of his undertaking or discharge of his own obligation.Q. A rents a flat in Bandra, Mumbai. The flat belongs to B, the owner of the flat who gives it on lease to A. In the agreement between them, A is the lessee and B is the lessor. A is thus under obligation to keep the property in his control separate from his own and must not use it in trading for his own benefit. Moreover A has an obligation to maintain the property in good condition so that it does not decay. Can the relation between A and B be defined as a fiduciary relationship?

View answer

A fiduciary relationship is where one person places some type of trust, confidence, and reliance on another person. The person who is delegated trust and confidence would then have a fiduciary duty to act for the benefit and interest of the other party. The party who owes a duty to act for the best interest of the other party is called the fiduciary. The party to whom the duty is owed is called principal.Fiduciary relationships are created in many legal assignments such as contracts, wills, trusts, elections, corporate settings, The main purpose for fiduciary relationships is to establish an honest and trusted relationship between two parties where one party can rely and be confident that the other person is working for their interest and are not using their power for their own interest or the interest of a third party.In order to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship, it could be said that whether one has reposed confidence in another, i.e. whether a confidential relationship exists, is the material test to determine the existence of fiduciary relationship.For instance, in a transaction with the trustee who is under an obligation to protect the interest of the beneficiary, for whose benefit the confidence has been reposed on him can be stated as a fiduciary relationship. The basic principle of the trust is that the trustee generally acts voluntarily and is not paid for his services, though he may claim remuneration if he can show a specific entitlement of it. A trustee cannot be a purchaser of trust property, as he cannot be both seller and purchaser.In a fiduciary relationship induced by profit a person, in whom a confidence is reposed, gains profits by availing himself of his position. Equity refuses such a person (fiduciary) to claim for himself the profit which has been obtained by him in pursuance of his undertaking or discharge of his own obligation.Q. A is offered a job in company X. B is the employer who appoints A as an employee in the company X, in the HR team. B assigns the role of heading the Resource management to A. Can the relation between A and B be defined as a fiduciary relationship?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything to obtain the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have proposed. Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into any form of a contract. A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests. Even in criminal law, it should be noted that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because of an unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion, while the act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence. To prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract. And, to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.Q. Rahul texted Azad over WhatsApp, "Will you sell me your Hayabusa Superbike? Text me the lowest price which needs to be paid." Azad replied via WhatsApp, "Minimum price for Hayabusa Superbike is Rs. 10 lakh." Rahul immediately agreed to buy the bike and texted Azad, "I am willing to buy your Hayabusa Superbike at the desired price of Rs. 10 lakh." Azad refused to sell the bike.a)He cannot refuse to sell the bike because the contract has already been made.b)He can refuse to sell the bike because it was only an invitation to offer and not the real offer.c)There was no offer by Azad because the willingness to enter into a contract was absent.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam