Test: Introduction to Indian Contract Act - CLAT PG MCQ

Acceptance of a general offer can occur simply by fulfilling the conditions set out in the offer, without the need for direct communication of acceptance. This is exemplified in cases like rewards for finding lost items, where performing the act constitutes acceptance.

An agreement in restraint of trade is considered void under the Indian Contract Act because it goes against public policy by limiting an individual's ability to engage in their profession or business. In contrast, the other options generally involve lawful agreements.

For acceptance to be valid, it must be communicated by the offeree to the offeror. This means that the offeree must explicitly express their agreement to the terms of the offer, ensuring that both parties are aware of the acceptance. Conditional acceptance, silence, or acceptance after the offer has lapsed do not meet the criteria for valid acceptance in contract law.

Absolute and unqualified acceptance means that the acceptance must be unconditional, without any modifications or conditions attached. If the offeree introduces any new terms or conditions, it constitutes a counteroffer rather than acceptance, thus nullifying the original offer and preventing the formation of a contract.

The communication of acceptance is considered complete against the proposer when it is put in a course of transmission. This means that once the acceptor has dispatched their acceptance (e.g., by mailing a letter), they no longer have control over it, and the acceptance is binding on the proposer once it is sent, even if the proposer has not yet received it.

Timeliness of acceptance refers to the requirement that acceptance must occur while the offer is still valid and has not lapsed or been revoked. If the offeror withdraws the offer or if a reasonable time has passed without acceptance, then the opportunity to accept the offer ceases, and no contract can be formed. This emphasizes the importance of acting promptly when considering an offer.

Unlawful agreements are considered void because they involve actions that are explicitly prohibited by law. Unlike voidable contracts, which may be enforceable until a party chooses to void them, unlawful agreements lack any legal standing from the outset.

The intention to create a legal relationship is crucial in distinguishing between social agreements and those intended to be legally binding. Without this intention, such as in informal arrangements among friends, the agreement may not be enforceable in a court of law.

Once an offer is accepted, it transforms into a legally binding contract, obligating both parties to fulfill their promises as stipulated in the agreement. This binding nature underscores the importance of clear acceptance in contract formation, ensuring that both parties are committed to the terms agreed upon.

A valid contract does not necessarily need to be in written form; it can be oral as long as the essential elements such as free consent, lawful object, and competence of the parties are satisfied. While written contracts can provide clarity and proof, they are not a strict requirement for enforceability.

Implied acceptance occurs when acceptance is indicated through actions rather than explicit agreement. In this case, by boarding the bus without purchasing a ticket, the passenger implicitly agrees to pay the fare, showcasing how conduct can signal acceptance even without direct communication of agreement.

Express Acceptance refers to the clear communication of agreement to the terms of an offer, which can be done through spoken or written words. This form of acceptance leaves no ambiguity about the offeree's intention to accept the offer, making it a straightforward and legally binding method of indicating agreement. In contrast, Implied Acceptance is communicated through actions or behavior rather than explicit statements. Understanding these nuances is essential for anyone studying contract law, as the method of acceptance can affect the validity of the contract.

For an acceptance to be valid within contract law, it must be absolute and unqualified. This means that the offeree cannot impose conditions or changes; doing so would constitute a counteroffer rather than acceptance. For instance, if an individual agrees to purchase an item but insists on a different price, that response is a counteroffer, nullifying the original offer. This principle ensures clarity and mutual consent between the parties involved in the contract, which is fundamental to forming enforceable agreements.

For an agreement to be legally enforceable as a contract, it must have free consent, a lawful object, and the parties involved must be competent to contract. While contracts can be communicated orally, it is not a requirement for enforceability. In fact, many contracts are valid whether they are written or verbal. However, specific types of contracts, such as those involving significant sums or certain transactions, may legally require written documentation to be enforceable.

A contract is considered voidable when one party's consent to the agreement is obtained through coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation. In such cases, the aggrieved party has the option to affirm or void the contract. This differs from a void agreement, which is unenforceable from the outset due to its inherent illegality or the lack of essential elements. Understanding the difference between void and voidable contracts is crucial in legal contexts, as it affects the rights and remedies available to the parties involved.