Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct 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 following passage and answer the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct 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 following passage and answer the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct 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 following passage and answer the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Fraud in Contracts - Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, article by Ipleaders]Q. A second-hand automobile dealer named Pramod informs Shiv that he can buy him a Ford Mustang for a pittance because he is well acquainted with the Mustang showroom dealer. Shiv gives his consent and gives Pramod the money. Pramod gives Shiv the Mustang as promised. Shiv later discovers that the car was stolen, and he accuses Pramod of fraud. Pramod asserts that he was not required to notify Shiv about it and uses the "buyer be aware" defense. Determine if fraud has been committed.a)Pramod is not responsible for any scam.b)Pramod is accountable for fraud.c)Shiv ought to have been a cautious purchaser.d)Pramod cannot be sued because he was simply a used car dealer.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.