Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Humanities/Arts Exam > Humanities/Arts Questions > Principle: An agreement without free consent ...

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of 'B' to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B's girl friend.

a)
'B' can enforce the agreement.
b)
'A' can enforce the agreement.
c)
'B' cannot enforce the agreement.
d)
Neither 'A' nor 'B' can enforce the agreement.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at t...

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.

Facts:
A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B's girlfriend.

Analysis:
The principle states that an agreement can only be enforced if both parties give their free consent. In this case, A obtained B's consent by using coercion and threatening B's girlfriend's life. Coercion involves the use of force or threat to make someone agree to a contract against their will.

Explanation:
According to the principle, an agreement without free consent is not valid. In this case, B's consent was not freely given because it was obtained through coercion. A put a gun on the head of B's girlfriend, which created fear and compelled B to agree to the contract. This clearly indicates that B did not give his consent willingly.

Since B's consent was not free, he has the option to refuse to enforce the agreement. Therefore, option 'A' is incorrect. B cannot enforce the agreement because his consent was obtained by coercion and was not given freely. Therefore, option 'B' is also incorrect.

The correct answer is option 'C' - B cannot enforce the agreement. The principle clearly states that an agreement without free consent can only be enforced at the option of the party whose consent was not free. In this case, B's consent was not free as it was obtained under duress. Therefore, B has the right to refuse to enforce the agreement.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, B cannot enforce the agreement because his consent was obtained through coercion. A's use of force and threat invalidated the free consent required for a valid agreement. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'C' - B cannot enforce the agreement.

Answered by Crafty Classes · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: Classification of Law- 2
15 Ques | 15 Min

Start Free Test

View all free Humanities/Arts tests

Community Answer

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at t...

For the free consent under section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, when it is not caused by

Coercion as under section 15
Under influences as Section 16
Fraud as defines Section 17
Misrepresentation as defines Section 18
Mistake subject to provision of Section 20,21 & 22

The reasonable conclusion drawn that as the consent B is not free, B can enforce the agreement.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for Humanities/Arts exam

Similar Humanities/Arts Doubts

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforces only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girlfriend.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Arbitration has been the toast of the legal community for a long time. It has been long expected that arbitration will replace business litigation to a great extent one day. Lawyers have been encouraging parties to have an arbitration agreement in all their business transaction documents for more than two decades now. However, arbitration has not been proven to be effective too often.A lot of lawyers have begun to re-evaluate if they should put in those arbitration clauses blindly in the agreements they draft. Also, a lot of people who have already put in binding arbitration clauses in their agreements, are finding arbitration very difficult to navigate and too expensive when disputes actually arise.Even after 23 years since the introduction of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, arbitration seems to be slowly evolving and not really making a dent on pendency of litigation situation and more costly unlike litigation. The Act empowers the arbitrator to terminate the proceedings where without any sufficient cause, the claimant fails to communicate his statement of claim within the stipulated period. If the respondent fails to submit his statement of defence within the predetermined period, the arbitrator shall continue with the proceedings without treating such a failure in itself as an admission of claimants allegations.Would it ever become the mature alternative that Indian businesses can safely rely on for reliable, fast, efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution, especially given the terrible state of civil justice?The BN Srikrishna Committee Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India states that a lack of governmental support to promote arbitration is also one of the reasons why arbitration has not become the most preferred way of resolution. The report goes on to suggest that there should be awareness programmes and training to make arbitration a more popular concept. However, such awareness campaigns are very unlikely to attract parties to arbitration given the way it functions at present.Quality of arbitration and arbitrators can often be suspect. The courts have settled the legal proposition that an arbitration agreement is not required to be in any particular form. Courts in India regularly interfere and do not respect party autonomy. The award is expected to be up for appeal or review in the higher courts and that really does not instill confidence in the parties involved in disputes. These factors are putting off parties from adopting arbitration. At present, it appears that only in a handful of matters involving very large claims, arbitration is still viable in India.Q.Rama and Bose agreed to an arbitration trial. On conclusion of the arbitration trial, Rama was awarded to indemnify Bose with Rs. 50,000 by the end of February 2020. During February 2020, Rama refused to pay Bose the said amount. Rama in defence said that the arbitration agreement was not in written form and hence doesnt bind him to indemnify Bose. Is the plea by Rama valid?

View answer

Principle: An agreement may be entered into orally or in writing, or by conduct.Facts: A went to the shop of B and picked a toothbrush and gave a cheque of Rupees twenty to B and left the shop.

View answer

The question consist of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.PRINCIPLE : Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that persons consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKUS ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of RINKUs possession without RINKUs constant. A could not take the tree away.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully:Arbitration has been the toast of the legal community for a long time. It has been long expected that arbitration will replace business litigation to a great extent one day. Lawyers have been encouraging parties to have an arbitration agreement in all their business transaction documents for more than two decades now. However, arbitration has not been proven to be effective too often.A lot of lawyers have begun to re-evaluate if they should put in those arbitration clauses blindly in the agreements they draft. Also, a lot of people who have already put in binding arbitration clauses in their agreements, are finding arbitration very difficult to navigate and too expensive when disputes actually arise.Even after 23 years since the introduction of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, arbitration seems to be slowly evolving and not really making a dent on pendency of litigation situation and more costly unlike litigation. The Act empowers the arbitrator to terminate the proceedings where without any sufficient cause, the claimant fails to communicate his statement of claim within the stipulated period. If the respondent fails to submit his statement of defence within the predetermined period, the arbitrator shall continue with the proceedings without treating such a failure in itself as an admission of claimants allegations.Would it ever become the mature alternative that Indian businesses can safely rely on for reliable, fast, efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution, especially given the terrible state of civil justice?The BN Srikrishna Committee Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India states that a lack of governmental support to promote arbitration is also one of the reasons why arbitration has not become the most preferred way of resolution. The report goes on to suggest that there should be awareness programmes and training to make arbitration a more popular concept. However, such awareness campaigns are very unlikely to attract parties to arbitration given the way it functions at present.Quality of arbitration and arbitrators can often be suspect. The courts have settled the legal proposition that an arbitration agreement is not required to be in any particular form. Courts in India regularly interfere and do not respect party autonomy. The award is expected to be up for appeal or review in the higher courts and that really does not instill confidence in the parties involved in disputes. These factors are putting off parties from adopting arbitration. At present, it appears that only in a handful of matters involving very large claims, arbitration is still viable in India.Q.According to the passage, what is a necessary component to enable arbitration between parties in a dispute?

View answer

Top Courses for Humanities/ArtsView all

Chapter Notes for Humanities

NCERT Books & Solutions for Humanities

Online MCQ Tests for Humanities

Short & Long Question Answers for Humanities

Geography Class 11

Top Courses for Humanities/Arts

View all

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for Humanities/Arts 2025 is part of Humanities/Arts preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Humanities/Arts exam syllabus. Information about Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Humanities/Arts 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Humanities/Arts. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Humanities/Arts Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of Bs girl friend.a)B can enforce the agreement.b)A can enforce the agreement.c)B cannot enforce the agreement.d)Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Humanities/Arts tests.

Explore Courses for Humanities/Arts exam