Proposal testing - Hobbies PDF Download

Summary of Proposal in Indian Contract Law

A proposal is defined as an offer made by one party to another party with the intention of entering into a legally binding agreement. It is an expression of willingness to do or not to do something, forming the basis of a contract.

• The proposal under Indian Contract Act
• What is an invitation to offer?
• Landmark cases dealing with invitations to treat/offer
  • Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. v. Gwalior Chemical Works Ltd. (1960)
  • Fisher v. Bell (1961)
  • Harvela Investments Ltd. v. Royal Trust Co. of Canada (1986)
  • Mohanlal v. Kashiram (1962)
  • Harvey v Facey (1893)
• Intention to create a legal relationship
• Balfour v Balfour
• Merritt v Merritt
• Communication of offer is necessary
• Types of Offer/Proposals
• Cross Offers
• Tinn v. Hoffman (1873)
• Counter Offer
• Hyde v. Wrench (1840)
• Specific and general offers
• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)
• Standing, open and continuing offers
  • Standing offers
  • Open offers
  • Continuing offers
• Bengal Coal Co v Homee Wadia & Co
• Rajendra Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh

The proposal under Indian Contract Act

According to Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, "when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal".

A proposal must be definite and specific in its terms, and it should be communicated to the other party with the intention of obtaining their acceptance. Once the other party accepts the proposal, it becomes a promise, and the terms of the contract bind the parties. If the proposal is not accepted, it will be considered a mere invitation to offer, and it will not create any legal obligation between the parties.

Examples:

• A company (A) offers to sell its products to another company (B) for a certain price. The offer is made in writing and sent via email to company B. This offer is a proposal, and if company B accepts the offer, it becomes a binding contract.
• A person (A) offers to sell their car to another person (B) for a certain amount. The offer is made orally during a conversation between the two parties. This offer is also a proposal, and if person B accepts the offer, it becomes a binding contract.
• A construction company (A) submits a proposal to a government agency (B) for building a new bridge. The proposal includes the details of the project, such as the cost, timeline, and specifications. This proposal is an offer to enter into a contract with the government agency (B), and if the agency accepts the proposal, it becomes a binding contract.

What is an invitation to offer?

• An invitation to offer is a preliminary communication that invites or encourages someone to make an offer or proposal, rather than being an actual offer itself. It is an invitation to negotiate or make an offer, which may or may not result in the formation of a contract.
• In simple terms, an invitation to offer is an invitation to commence negotiations or discussions, and it does not create a legal obligation to accept any resulting offer.
• Examples of an invitation to offer include advertisements, price lists, catalogues, and displays of goods in a shop window or online store. These do not constitute a binding offer, but rather an invitation to customers to make an offer to purchase.
• For example, a shop owner displaying goods in their store window is an invitation to customers to make an offer to purchase those goods. The customer's offer to purchase the goods at a certain price would constitute a proposal, and the shop owner's acceptance of the proposal would form a binding contract.

Landmark cases dealing with invitations to treat/offer

• Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. v. Gwalior Chemical Works Ltd. (1960)

  In this case, the court held that a price list is an invitation to treat and not an offer or proposal. The court held that a contract is only formed when an offer is made by one party and accepted by the other.

• Fisher v. Bell (1961)

  This case established the principle that a display of goods in a shop window or on a shelf is generally an invitation to treat and not an offer. The customer's offer to purchase the goods at a certain price would constitute a proposal, and the shop owner's acceptance of the proposal would form a binding contract.

• Harvela Investments Ltd. v. Royal Trust Co. of Canada (1986)

  This case established the principle of the "invitation to tender," which is a process by which a party invites potential contractors to submit bids for a project. The court held that an invitation to tender is not an offer, but rather an invitation to submit offers.

Case Law Summaries

• Mohanlal v. Kashiram (1962)

  Mohanlal v. Kashiram (1962)Mohanlal v. Kashiram (1962)

  In this case, the court held that an advertisement for the sale of property is an invitation to treat and not an offer. The court held that a contract is only formed when an offer is made by one party and accepted by the other.

• Harvey v Facey (1893)

  Harvey v Facey (1893)Harvey v Facey (1893)

  In this case, the plaintiff (Harvey) telegraphed the defendant (Facey) asking if he would sell certain property and, if so, at what price. The defendant replied with a telegraph that simply stated the lowest price that he would accept for the property. The plaintiff then claimed that the defendant had made an offer to sell the property at that price, which he had accepted by his subsequent telegraphs.

  The court, however, held that the defendant's telegraph was not an offer to sell the property, but rather a mere statement of the lowest price he would accept. The court held that the defendant had not made any offer, and therefore there was no contract between the parties.

  The court further explained that an invitation to treat is not an offer, but rather an invitation to commence negotiations or discussions. The court held that the defendant's telegraph was an invitation to treat, and not an offer to sell the property.

Intention to create a legal relationship

• Intention to create a legal relationship
• Intention to create a legal relationship
• The intention to create a legal relationship is a key element in the formation of a contract. It refers to the intention of the parties to create a legally binding agreement, i.e. an agreement that can be enforced by law.
• In general, the law assumes that parties intend to create a legal relationship when they enter into a contract. However, in certain situations, the parties may not intend to create a legally binding agreement, such as in social or domestic arrangements. For example, if friends agree to meet at a café, there may not be an intention to create a legally binding agreement.
• In order for a contract to be enforceable, the intention to create a legal relationship must be present at the time of entering into the agreement. This means that both parties must have a common intention to create legal relations.
• The intention to create a legal relationship can be expressed or implied. It may be expressed through the language used in the contract, such as when the parties state explicitly that they intend to create a legally binding agreement. Alternatively, the intention may be implied from the circumstances surrounding the agreement. For example, if a person provides a service and is paid for it, there may be an implied intention to create a legal relationship.
• If the parties do not have the intention to create a legal relationship, the agreement will not be enforceable as a contract. Therefore, the presence or absence of the intention to create a legal relationship is a crucial factor in determining the validity of a contract.

Balfour v Balfour

Balfour v Balfour is a landmark case in the law of contract that deals with the issue of intention to create a legal relationship. The case was decided by the English Court of Appeal in 1919.

In this case, Mr. Balfour was a British civil servant who was posted to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1915. At that time, his wife, Mrs. Balfour, remained in England due to health reasons. Before leaving, Mr. Balfour promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance of £30 until she joined him in Ceylon. However, the couple later separated, and Mrs. Balfour sued her husband for breach of contract, claiming the unpaid allowance.

The court held that there was no contract between the parties. The court found that the promise made by Mr. Balfour was a mere social arrangement between husband and wife, and not intended to create a legal relationship. The court noted that not all agreements between family members or spouses are legally binding and that the intention to create a legal relationship must be present in order for a contract to be enforceable.

The court explained that in the absence of an intention to create a legal relationship, there is no consideration, which is an essential element of a contract. Consideration refers to the exchange of something of value, such as money or services, between the parties. In this case, Mrs. Balfour had not given any consideration in exchange for the promise made by her husband.

• Merritt v MerrittMerritt v Merritt

  Merritt v Merritt is a landmark case in the law of contract that deals with the issue of intention to create a legal relationship. The case was decided by the English Court of Appeal in 1970.

• In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Merritt were a married couple who had separated, but had not yet divorced. They owned a house jointly, and had agreed to transfer ownership of the house to Mrs. Merritt in exchange for her agreement to pay off the outstanding mortgage on the property. The couple had made a written agreement to this effect, which was signed by both parties.
• After Mrs. Merritt had paid off the mortgage, Mr. Merritt refused to transfer ownership of the house to her. Mrs. Merritt sued her husband for breach of contract, claiming ownership of the property.
• The court held that there was a valid and enforceable contract between the parties. The court found that the written agreement signed by the parties was evidence of their intention to create a legal relationship, and that both parties had given consideration in exchange for the promise made by the other. Mrs. Merritt had promised to pay off the mortgage, and Mr. Merritt had promised to transfer ownership of the house.

Summary of Legal Principle on Agreements between Spouses

• The court clarified that being married does not automatically negate the intention to form a legal relationship.

• In a case where parties were separated, the court acknowledged an agreement for property transfer, with Mrs. Merritt undertaking mortgage payments.

• The court determined that the arrangement was not merely domestic but constituted a valid and enforceable contract.

• Thus, the case highlighted that agreements between spouses or family members can create binding contracts if there is clear intent to establish a legal relationship and both parties offer consideration in return for each other's promises.

Communication of offer is necessary

Communication of offer is necessaryCommunication of offer is necessary

• Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt is a landmark case in the law of contract that deals with the issue of offer and acceptance. The case was decided by the Privy Council in 1913.
• In this case, Lalman Shukla was a servant of Gauri Dutt, who was the uncle of Lalman's deceased father. Gauri Dutt had sent Lalman to search for his missing nephew, and had promised to pay a reward of Rs. 501 to anyone who could find him. However, before Lalman could return with the news that Gauri Dutt's nephew had been found, Gauri Dutt learned of his nephew's death from other sources.
• Gauri Dutt then refused to pay Lalman the promised reward, claiming that the offer of the reward was made only for the purpose of finding his nephew alive, and that since his nephew was now dead, there was no offer to be accepted.
• The court held that there was no contract between the parties. The court found that Gauri Dutt's promise to pay the reward was an offer, and that Lalman's search for his nephew was an acceptance of that offer. The court noted that an offer can be accepted by performing the requested act, and that Lalman's search was the performance of the requested act.
• The court rejected Gauri Dutt's argument that the offer was only for the purpose of finding his nephew alive. The court explained that the offer was not limited to finding the nephew alive, but was for the act of finding the nephew, regardless of whether he was alive or dead. Therefore, the court found that Lalman had accepted the offer by performing the requested act, and that Gauri Dutt was bound to pay the promised reward.

Summary: Types of Offers and Cross Offers

Therefore, the case established the principle that an offer can be accepted by performing the requested act, and that an offer may be for a specific act rather than a specific result.

Types of Offer/Proposals

• Types of Offer/Proposals
• Cross Offers

A cross offer occurs when two parties make identical offers to each other without knowing that the other has made an offer. In such a situation, neither party can accept the other's offer, as there is no clear indication of an intention to create a legally binding agreement. Here are a few landmark cases related to cross offers:

Tinn v. Hoffman (1873)

• In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant were negotiating the sale of a quantity of tin.
• The plaintiff sent a letter offering to sell the tin at a certain price, and the defendant sent a letter in response, also offering to buy the tin at the same price.
• However, neither party had received the other's letter at the time they made their offer.
• The court held that there was no contract between the parties, as neither party had accepted the other's offer.

Counter Offer

• A counter-offer is a response to an initial offer that varies the terms of the original offer.
• It is essentially a rejection of the original offer, and it terminates the initial offer.
• Here are a few landmark cases related to counter-offers:

Hyde v. Wrench (1840)

• In this case, the defendant offered to sell his estate to the plaintiff for a certain price.
• The plaintiff made a counteroffer for a lower price, which the defendant rejected.
• The plaintiff then attempted to accept the defendant's original offer, but the defendant refused to sell.
• The court held that there was no contract between the parties, as the plaintiff's counteroffer amounted to a rejection of the defendant's offer.

Specific and general offers

• In contract law, an offer is a proposal made by one party (the offeror) to another party (the offeree) with the intention of creating a legally binding agreement.
• Offers can be categorized into two main types: specific offers and general offers.

 Specific offers: 

• A specific offer is an offer made to a specific person or group of people.
• For example, if a person offers to sell their car to a particular individual for a certain price, this is a specific offer.
• Specific offers can only be accepted by the person or group of people to whom they are addressed.
• If the offer is not accepted within the specified time period or on the specific terms outlined in the offer, it lapses and cannot be accepted later.

 General offers: 

• A general offer is an offer made to the public at large or a group of people who may accept it.
• For example, an advertisement offering a reward for the return of a lost item is a general offer.
• Anyone who finds the lost item and meets the conditions of the offer can claim the reward.
• The key difference between a specific offer and a general offer is that a general offer can be accepted by anyone who meets the conditions of the offer.

Specific vs. General Offers in Contract Law

• Specific Offer:
  • The offeror is obligated to sell the item to the offeree if:
    • The offeree accepts the offer within the specified time period
    • The offeree accepts the offer on the specific terms outlined in the offer
• General Offer:
  • The offeror is only obligated to fulfill the offer if:
    • Someone meets the conditions of the offer
    • Someone accepts the offer

Overall, the distinction between specific and general offers is crucial in contract law. It dictates the legal implications of an offer and the conditions for acceptance.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)

• Overview:

  Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) is a landmark case that deals with the distinction between specific and general offers.

• Case Background:

  The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a general offer through newspaper advertisements, promising a reward to anyone who used their product and still contracted influenza.

• Plaintiff's Argument:

  Mrs. Carlill purchased and used the product as directed but still contracted influenza. She sued the company for the reward, claiming she had accepted the general offer by using the product as instructed.

• Company's Defense:

  The company argued that the advertisement was not a specific offer to Mrs. Carlill and thus no contract existed between them.

• Court's Decision:

  The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill, stating that the advertisement constituted a general offer that she had accepted by following the instructions and contracting influenza.

• Legal Interpretation:

  The court found that the advertisement contained specific terms that could be reasonably seen as an offer, and Mrs. Carlill's use of the product constituted consideration for the promise of a reward.

• Significance:

  This case is significant as it clarifies the difference between specific and general offers and emphasizes the importance of clear terms in contractual agreements.

Standing, Open, and Continuing Offers

• Standing Offers

  A standing offer is an offer that is made to a particular person or group of people and is valid for a specific period. It remains open for acceptance during the specified period.

• Open Offers

  An open offer is a type of general offer that is open to anyone who meets the specified conditions. It remains open for a reasonable period and can be accepted by anyone who meets the conditions.

• Continuing Offers

  A continuing offer remains open for a specified period but can be accepted multiple times during that period. For example, a company can offer to supply a product at a fixed price for a year, allowing multiple orders.

Legal Implications of Different Types of Offers

• It is important to note that the legal implications of these different types of offers can vary:
• 
  
  • A standing offer can only be accepted by the person or group of people to whom it is addressed and only within the specified period.
  • An open offer can be accepted by anyone who meets the specified conditions within a reasonable period.
  • A continuing offer can be accepted multiple times within the specified period.

Bengal Coal Co v Homee Wadia & Co

Bengal Coal Co v Homee Wadia & CoBengal Coal Co v Homee Wadia & Co

• The case of Bengal Coal Co v Homee Wadia & Co (1912) is a landmark case in the area of standing, open, and continuing offers.
• In this case, the Bengal Coal Co. offered to sell a certain quantity of coal to Homee Wadia & Co., stating that the offer would remain open until a specific date.
• Homee Wadia & Co. did not accept the offer within the specified time frame but attempted to do so after the date had passed.
• The Bengal Coal Co. refused to accept the order, arguing that the offer had lapsed.
• The court held that the offer made by the Bengal Coal Co. was a standing offer, and since it had not been accepted within the specified time frame, it had lapsed.
• The court stated that the nature of the offer was such that it could only be accepted within the specified period, and once that period had expired, the offer was no longer valid.

Summary of Rajendra Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh Case

This case established the principle that a standing offer can only be accepted within the specified period, and once that period has expired, the offer lapses. It also emphasizes the importance of the terms and conditions of an offer, and how they can impact the validity of the offer.

Rajendra Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh

The case of Rajendra Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) is a landmark case related to the doctrine of continuing offers in contract law.

In this case, Rajendra Kumar applied for a post in the state government and was selected for the job. He was given an appointment letter, which stated that he had to report for duty within a specified period, failing which his appointment would be deemed as cancelled. Rajendra Kumar failed to report for duty within the specified period, and his appointment was cancelled.

Rajendra Kumar challenged the cancellation of his appointment, arguing that the offer made by the state government was a continuing offer, and therefore, he had the right to report for duty at any time. The state government argued that the offer was not a continuing offer, and the appointment was cancelled due to the failure of the applicant to report for duty within the specified period.

The court held that the offer made by the state government was not a continuing offer, and the applicant had to report for duty within the specified period. The court emphasized that the terms of the offer must be clear and unambiguous, and in the absence of any ambiguity, the court must give effect to the terms of the offer.

• Principle of Continuing Offer:
  • A continuing offer is only valid when it is clear, unambiguous, and allows for ongoing acceptance.
• Importance of Offer Terms:
  • The terms and conditions of an offer play a crucial role in determining its validity.
• Interpretation of Offer Terms:
  • Understanding and interpreting the terms of an offer are essential for assessing its enforceability.
• Validity Determination:
  • Clarity and specificity in offer terms are key factors in establishing the validity of an offer.

You might like

• Leave a Reply Cancel Reply