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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. John and Manoj were engaged in the computer equipment trading business. John consistently used physical threats against Manoj to ensure that he remained the exclusive business partner. The court issued a judgment that nullified the contract solely based on Manojs complaint. Was the courts decision warranted?a)No, as the court made its decision solely based on Manojs complaint without any supporting evidence.b)Yes, because the mere use of coercion automatically renders the contract invalid, justifying the courts decision without additional proof.c)No, because the fact that Manoj continued doing business with John despite the threats indicates his willingness to maintain the business relationship, thus undermining the courts justification.d)Yes, because the burden of proof lies with John to demonstrate that he did not employ coercion, and he failed to do so.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.