Question Description
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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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.a)It is a valid contract as both the parties have agreed to it.b)It is not a valid contract as it is subject to restraint.c)It is a valid contract as the conditions are reasonable and within specific period of time.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.