Question 1
Principle:
In contract law, the principle of “free consent” ensures that the parties have agreed to the same thing in the same sense without any force, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. A contract is not valid if consent is obtained by coercion.
In contract law, the principle of “free consent” ensures that the parties have agreed to the same thing in the same sense without any force, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. A contract is not valid if consent is obtained by coercion.
Fact:
A threatens to file a false criminal case against B unless B sells his car to A at half its market price. B agrees and sells the car.
A threatens to file a false criminal case against B unless B sells his car to A at half its market price. B agrees and sells the car.
Question:
Is the contract valid?
Is the contract valid?
Options:
A. Yes, because B agreed to sell the car.
B. No, because consent was obtained under coercion.
C. Yes, because no physical harm was done.
D. No, because B could have refused.
A. Yes, because B agreed to sell the car.
B. No, because consent was obtained under coercion.
C. Yes, because no physical harm was done.
D. No, because B could have refused.
Answer:
B. No, because consent was obtained under coercion.
B. No, because consent was obtained under coercion.
Explanation:
Under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, coercion includes threatening to bring a false case. Consent obtained this way is not free, making the contract voidable.
Under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, coercion includes threatening to bring a false case. Consent obtained this way is not free, making the contract voidable.
Question 2
Principle:
A contract entered without consideration is generally void unless it falls under exceptions. Consideration is an essential element of a valid contract.
A contract entered without consideration is generally void unless it falls under exceptions. Consideration is an essential element of a valid contract.
Fact:
A promises to give ₹10,000 to his nephew B out of love and affection without any reciprocal promise.
A promises to give ₹10,000 to his nephew B out of love and affection without any reciprocal promise.
Question:
Is the promise enforceable?
Is the promise enforceable?
Options:
A. Yes, it is a valid contract.
B. No, because there is no consideration.
C. Yes, because the promise is between close relatives.
D. No, because it is illegal.
A. Yes, it is a valid contract.
B. No, because there is no consideration.
C. Yes, because the promise is between close relatives.
D. No, because it is illegal.
Answer:
B. No, because there is no consideration.
B. No, because there is no consideration.
Explanation:
A gratuitous promise without consideration is not enforceable unless made in writing and registered (as per exception under Section 25). Here, it’s not mentioned.
A gratuitous promise without consideration is not enforceable unless made in writing and registered (as per exception under Section 25). Here, it’s not mentioned.
Question 3
Principle:
An agreement with an unlawful object is void. A contract with an illegal objective is not enforceable in law.
An agreement with an unlawful object is void. A contract with an illegal objective is not enforceable in law.
Fact:
A hires B to smuggle goods across the border for ₹50,000. B completes the task but A refuses to pay.
A hires B to smuggle goods across the border for ₹50,000. B completes the task but A refuses to pay.
Question:
Can B sue A for payment?
Can B sue A for payment?
Options:
A. Yes, because the contract was completed.
B. No, because the object was unlawful.
C. Yes, because A is unjustly enriched.
D. No, because it was a verbal contract.
A. Yes, because the contract was completed.
B. No, because the object was unlawful.
C. Yes, because A is unjustly enriched.
D. No, because it was a verbal contract.
Answer:
B. No, because the object was unlawful.
B. No, because the object was unlawful.
Explanation:
Agreements with unlawful objectives are void ab initio, and courts will not enforce them or help recover under them.
Agreements with unlawful objectives are void ab initio, and courts will not enforce them or help recover under them.
Question 4
Principle:
A proposal must be accepted unequivocally to result in a contract. Conditional acceptance is not a valid acceptance.
A proposal must be accepted unequivocally to result in a contract. Conditional acceptance is not a valid acceptance.
Fact:
A offers to sell his bike to B for ₹20,000. B says, “I accept, if you also include the helmet.”
A offers to sell his bike to B for ₹20,000. B says, “I accept, if you also include the helmet.”
Question:
Is there a valid acceptance?
Is there a valid acceptance?
Options:
A. Yes, as B has accepted the main offer.
B. No, because it is a counter-offer.
C. Yes, because the condition is minor.
D. No, because the offer was revoked.
A. Yes, as B has accepted the main offer.
B. No, because it is a counter-offer.
C. Yes, because the condition is minor.
D. No, because the offer was revoked.
Answer:
B. No, because it is a counter-offer.
B. No, because it is a counter-offer.
Explanation:
A conditional acceptance amounts to a counter-offer, not acceptance. Hence, no valid contract is formed.
A conditional acceptance amounts to a counter-offer, not acceptance. Hence, no valid contract is formed.
Question 5
Principle:
Communication of revocation must reach the other party before acceptance. Revocation is effective only when it is communicated before acceptance.
Communication of revocation must reach the other party before acceptance. Revocation is effective only when it is communicated before acceptance.
Fact:
A offers to sell land to B. Before B accepts, A sends a revocation letter which reaches B after B had already posted his acceptance.
A offers to sell land to B. Before B accepts, A sends a revocation letter which reaches B after B had already posted his acceptance.
Question:
Is the revocation valid?
Is the revocation valid?
Options:
A. Yes, because A intended to revoke.
B. No, because B already accepted.
C. Yes, because the letter was sent.
D. No, because it was not signed.
A. Yes, because A intended to revoke.
B. No, because B already accepted.
C. Yes, because the letter was sent.
D. No, because it was not signed.
Answer:
B. No, because B already accepted.
B. No, because B already accepted.
Explanation:
According to the postal rule, acceptance is complete when posted. Revocation must reach before acceptance is posted.
According to the postal rule, acceptance is complete when posted. Revocation must reach before acceptance is posted.
Question 6
Principle:
Agreements in restraint of trade are void. Every agreement restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business is void.
Agreements in restraint of trade are void. Every agreement restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business is void.
Fact:
X, a software engineer, agrees not to work for any other company for 5 years after leaving ABC Ltd.
X, a software engineer, agrees not to work for any other company for 5 years after leaving ABC Ltd.
Question:
Is this agreement valid?
Is this agreement valid?
Options:
A. Yes, as X agreed voluntarily.
B. No, as it restrains trade.
C. Yes, because it’s a private agreement.
D. No, because it’s not in writing.
A. Yes, as X agreed voluntarily.
B. No, as it restrains trade.
C. Yes, because it’s a private agreement.
D. No, because it’s not in writing.
Answer:
B. No, as it restrains trade.
B. No, as it restrains trade.
Explanation:
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act makes such clauses void unless reasonable and justified (e.g., protecting trade secrets).
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act makes such clauses void unless reasonable and justified (e.g., protecting trade secrets).
Question 7
Principle:
Only parties to a contract can sue upon it. A stranger to the contract cannot sue.
Only parties to a contract can sue upon it. A stranger to the contract cannot sue.
Fact:
A contracts with B to deliver goods to C. A fails to deliver.
A contracts with B to deliver goods to C. A fails to deliver.
Question:
Can C sue A?
Can C sue A?
Options:
A. Yes, because the contract was for C’s benefit.
B. No, because C is a stranger to the contract.
C. Yes, because B is also liable.
D. No, because C did not accept.
A. Yes, because the contract was for C’s benefit.
B. No, because C is a stranger to the contract.
C. Yes, because B is also liable.
D. No, because C did not accept.
Answer:
B. No, because C is a stranger to the contract.
B. No, because C is a stranger to the contract.
Explanation:
Under the privity of contract rule, only parties to the contract have the right to sue.
Under the privity of contract rule, only parties to the contract have the right to sue.
Question 8
Principle:
Silence is not fraud unless there is a duty to speak. Mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstances impose a duty to speak.
Silence is not fraud unless there is a duty to speak. Mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstances impose a duty to speak.
Fact:
A sells a house to B but doesn’t disclose that it is prone to flooding.
A sells a house to B but doesn’t disclose that it is prone to flooding.
Question:
Is A guilty of fraud?
Is A guilty of fraud?
Options:
A. Yes, as he hid information.
B. No, because B should have investigated.
C. No, unless A had a duty to speak.
D. Yes, because silence always amounts to fraud.
A. Yes, as he hid information.
B. No, because B should have investigated.
C. No, unless A had a duty to speak.
D. Yes, because silence always amounts to fraud.
Answer:
C. No, unless A had a duty to speak.
C. No, unless A had a duty to speak.
Explanation:
Fraud requires active concealment or a duty to disclose. Mere silence, in absence of such a duty, is not fraud.
Fraud requires active concealment or a duty to disclose. Mere silence, in absence of such a duty, is not fraud.
Question 9
Principle:
An agreement made under a mistake of fact is void. Bilateral mistake of essential fact renders a contract void.
An agreement made under a mistake of fact is void. Bilateral mistake of essential fact renders a contract void.
Fact:
A agrees to sell B a cargo ship thinking it’s in the harbor, but it had already sunk.
A agrees to sell B a cargo ship thinking it’s in the harbor, but it had already sunk.
Question:
Is the contract valid?
Is the contract valid?
Options:
A. Yes, because both agreed.
B. No, because the subject no longer exists.
C. Yes, because A didn’t know.
D. No, because the price was not paid.
A. Yes, because both agreed.
B. No, because the subject no longer exists.
C. Yes, because A didn’t know.
D. No, because the price was not paid.
Answer:
B. No, because the subject no longer exists.
B. No, because the subject no longer exists.
Explanation:
There’s a bilateral mistake regarding the existence of the subject matter. Such contracts are void under Section 20.
There’s a bilateral mistake regarding the existence of the subject matter. Such contracts are void under Section 20.
Question 10
Principle:
A minor is incompetent to contract. A contract with a minor is void ab initio.
A minor is incompetent to contract. A contract with a minor is void ab initio.
Fact:
A 17-year-old boy enters a contract to buy a bike on EMI.
A 17-year-old boy enters a contract to buy a bike on EMI.
Question:
Is the contract enforceable?
Is the contract enforceable?
Options:
A. Yes, if he pays regularly.
B. No, because he is a minor.
C. Yes, because the seller agreed.
D. No, because it is illegal.
A. Yes, if he pays regularly.
B. No, because he is a minor.
C. Yes, because the seller agreed.
D. No, because it is illegal.
Answer:
B. No, because he is a minor.
B. No, because he is a minor.
Explanation:
A minor cannot enter into a contract. Such a contract is void and cannot be enforced by or against the minor.
A minor cannot enter into a contract. Such a contract is void and cannot be enforced by or against the minor.
Read More: Previous Year Question Papers of CLAT
Subscribe for updates
Join 10,000+ subscribers.
RU
Ruchika Mohapatra
Contributing author
Have a doubt about this?Ask Doubts
