Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct 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.For a contract to be valid, the consent of the parties must be genuine. The principle of consensus-ad-idem is followed, which means that the parties entering into the contract must mean the same thing in the same sense.Mere consent is not enough for a contract to be enforceable; the consent given must be free and voluntary. The definition of free consent provided under the Indian Contracts Act is as: Consent that is free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.The objective of the principle of free consent is to ensure that judgement of the parties while entering into the contract wasnt clouded. Therefore, consent given under coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake has the potential to invalidate the contract.For example, such a factor which could invalidate a contract is the presence of coercion. According to the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, coercion is defined as commission, or threat to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.Coercion could be directed against the prejudice of any person and not just the party to the contract. It is also not necessary that only the party to the contract causes the coercion. Even a third party to the contract can cause coercion to obtain the consent.The burden of proof in cases of coercion lies on the party whose consent was coerced. When consent of a party was obtained through coercion, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Contract Law, blog by Ipleaders]Q. Adam, a customer, was prevented by a shopkeeper from leaving the store until he bought the item he had inquired about. After buying the item, he was allowed to leave. Which of the following statements, based on your interpretation of the passage, is correct concerning the validity of the contract?a)The contract is valid because Adam voluntarily chose to purchase the item in order to exit the store.b)The contract is invalid because Adam was compelled to buy the item through force and coercion.c)The contract is not inherently void but can be rendered void if Adam decides to do so, as he was subjected to coercion.d)The contract is void because Adam had no intention of buying the item.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.