Test: Contract Of Law - 1 - CLAT MCQ

Section 7 requires acceptance to be absolute, unqualified, and communicated to the offeror. Option B accurately reflects this, while others are incorrect as they either add non-existent requirements or misinterpret the law.

In Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, acceptance requires knowledge of the offer. Rohan returned the dog without knowing about the reward, so no contract was formed, making A correct.

Under Section 6(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a general offer, such as a reward advertisement, can be revoked by giving notice in the same manner and medium as the original offer, provided it is reasonably publicized. Meera published the revocation notice in a local newspaper on July 9, 2025, matching the medium of the original offer. This makes the revocation legally effective for all potential offerees, regardless of whether they read it, as no personal communication is required for general offers.
Since Rohan was unaware of the offer when he returned the dog on July 8, no contract was formed, and the revocation’s effectiveness further prevents any subsequent claim.
 Therefore,Option A is correct.

​​​​​​Section 4 states that communication of acceptance is complete when it is put into a course of transmission to the offeror, such as sending an email or letter. Option B is correct.

If Rohan knew of the offer and returned the dog on July 8, his act constitutes acceptance before the revocation on July 9. Section 5 allows acceptance to bind the offeror before revocation, making B correct.

Section 2(d) defines consideration as an act, abstinence, or promise done at the promisor’s desire with legal value. Option B is correct, while A is too narrow, C lacks legal basis, and D is unrelated to consideration.

Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration is an act, abstinence, or promise done at the promisor’s desire with legal value. Meera’s promise to pay Sanjay an additional ₹10,000 per month for delivering flour by 7 AM daily constitutes a new agreement or variation of the original contract. Sanjay’s early deliveries, performed at Meera’s request, provide fresh consideration, as they involve additional effort beyond the original contract terms. This makes the promise enforceable, as consideration need not be adequate but must be real and lawful.
Therefore,Option A is correct.

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, requires consideration to be an act, abstinence, or promise done at the promisor’s desire. Tara voluntarily organized a marketing event for Meera’s bakery without Meera’s request, so her actions do not constitute consideration. Meera’s oral promise to reimburse Tara ₹20,000 lacks consideration and is unenforceable under Section 25, unless it falls under an exception. Section 25(2) allows promises to compensate for past voluntary services, but such promises must be in writing, and Meera’s promise was oral. Therefore, no contract exists, and Option C is correct.

Section 25 lists exceptions, including gifts made out of natural love and affection that are written and registered. Option B is correct, while A requires a written promise, C is void, and D may require consideration (e.g., Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mohamed).

 Meera’s refusal to pay the promised ₹10,000 may constitute an anticipatory breach (Section 39), excusing Sanjay’s performance. Meera cannot sue for breach if she breached first.