All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the following passage and an... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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 wasn't 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the manager's chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?
  • a)
    Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.
  • b)
    Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.
  • c)
    No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.
  • d)
    No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a c...
Explanation:

Coercion in the Contract:
The football player's manager withholding his assets until he agreed to join a different club amounts to coercion, as per the definition provided under the Indian Contracts Act. Coercion involves the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property with the intention of causing a person to enter into an agreement.

Validity of the Contract:
In this case, the player's consent to join the club selected by the manager was not freely given, as it was obtained through coercion. Therefore, the contract entered into under such circumstances can be considered voidable at the option of the party whose consent was coerced.

Player's Options:
The player still has the option to reconsider his decision and void the contract since his consent was not freely given. The presence of coercion by the manager invalidates the contract, and the player is not obligated to remain with the club selected by the manager.

Legal Standing:
According to the Indian Contracts Act, consent given under coercion has the potential to invalidate a contract. The burden of proof lies on the party whose consent was coerced to demonstrate the presence of coercion in obtaining the consent.
Therefore, in this scenario, the player has the legal right to reconsider his decision and void the contract due to the presence of coercion by his manager.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.For a c...
The contract may also be subject to coercion by a third party, in which case the forced party may choose to nullify the agreement. Therefore, if the player so chooses, he may void the contract.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers 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. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.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.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle 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.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the 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, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.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.Q.A football player was interested in joining a certain club. However, his manager detained his assets until he joined another club of the managers choice. The player then entered into a contract with the club chosen for him and reached the premises. Is it too late now for him to change his mind?

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?

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?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers 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. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.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.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle 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.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the 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, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.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.Q.Abhi worked in a space research agency. He entered into a contract with Ravi that he would make him travel to Mars if he invested in his next space project. Ravi agreed and invested heavily in Abhis project. Abhi promised him that he would send him to Mars whenever they launched the project. Later, Ravi found that Abhis company had gone bankrupt and his Mars mission had never taken shape. Abhi told him that they were about to start the Mars project hoping that people would invest and they would recover the debt money, but a newspaper wrote that scientists are yet to discover the method to reach Mars and people took back their money. Ravi sued Abhi for influencing him in investing in an unenforceable contract. Decide.

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers 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. The parties to the contract must have the same understanding in regard to the subject matter of the contract.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.Clearly, free consent means the absence of any kind of coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. When the consent which is given is affected by these elements, it calls into question whether the consent given was free and voluntary. The objective of this principle 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.A very crucial part of the law is the phrase "to the prejudice of any person whatever", which means the 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, as was seen in the case of Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sethi, where a widow was coerced into adopting a boy by the boys parents by not allowing the corpse of the widows husband to be removed from the home until the adoption was made.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.Q.Chan is a new trader in the market. He entered into a contract with another trader, who had the biggest market share. However, Chan later felt that he might have made a mistake and wished to invalidate the contract claiming he felt pressured by the big trader. Can the contract be invalidated?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. A football player expressed interest in joining a specific club. However, his manager withheld his assets until he agreed to join a different club selected by the manager. The player subsequently entered into a contract with the managers chosen club and arrived at their premises. Is it still possible for the player to reconsider his decision?a)Yes, he made the choice to contract with the selected club without any coercion from them, and his consent was freely given.b)Yes, the manager exerted coercion, but the chosen club was not involved in this coercion.c)No, the contract is null and void, and he is not obligated to remain with that club.d)No, he still has the option to void the contract since he was coerced by his manager.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup