|
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.
|
MANU/SC/0131/1953
|
Issue regarding the application of the doctrine of frustration/supervening impossibility
in Indian contract law.
|
The Indian Contract Act, to the extent it addresses a subject, exhausts it, making
it impermissible to import English law principles. The doctrine of supervening impossibility
is similar to the English doctrine of frustration.
|
Confirmed the self-sufficiency of the Indian Contract Act and established the Indian
view on the doctrine of frustration
|
|
CWT v. Abdul Hussain
|
MANU/SC/0108/1988
|
Issue concerning the requisite intention to create legal consequences in a transaction.
|
In commercial transactions, there is a presumption that parties intend legal consequences
. The test of intention is objective
|
Affirmed the presumption of intention in commercial dealings and the objective test
for determining intention
|
|
Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal
|
MANU/SC/0013/1972
|
Issue regarding the fundamental requirement for the formation of a contract.
|
The Supreme Court emphasized that an intention to create legal relations is essential
for the formation of a contract
|
Reinforced the fundamental requirement of intention to create legal relations in
contract formation
|
|
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
|
(1893) 1 QB 256 (CA)
|
Company advertised a reward for using their smoke ball as directed but still contracting
influenza; a user sued for the reward.
|
An offer can be made to the public at large (General Offer), and performance of
conditions suffices as acceptance without communication99. Wagering contracts require
uncertainty, mutual chance of gain/loss, and no other interest than winning/losing
|
Established the principles of a General Offer, acceptance by performance, and the
essentials of a wagering contract
|
|
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt
|
(1913) 11 All LJ 489
|
Plaintiff was unaware of a reward when he found the missing person, then claimed
the reward.
|
A proposal cannot be accepted unless it comes to the knowledge of the person accepting
it
|
Held that knowledge of the offer is essential for valid acceptance.
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Ltd.
|
(1952) 2 QB 795
|
Self-service shop: issue of whether displaying goods with price tags constituted
an offer or an invitation to offer.
|
Displaying goods in a shop with price tags is an invitation to offer, not an offer14.
The offer is made by the customer at the till.
|
Established the principle that the display of goods is an invitation to offer.
|
|
Hyde v. Wrench
|
(1840) 49 ER 132
|
Defendant offered to sell land for $1000; plaintiff counter-offered $950, which
was rejected, then tried to accept the original $1000 offer.
|
A counteroffer terminates the original offer
|
Classic case defining a counteroffer and its effect on the original offer
|
|
Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co.
|
(1887) 2 AC 666)
|
Parties conducted business for years based on an unexecuted draft agreement.
|
Mere mental agreement is insufficient for acceptance; there must be communication
to the other party
|
Confirmed that acceptance must be communicated; silence or mental assent is not
enough
|
|
Felthouse v. Bindley
|
(1863) 7 LT 835
|
Offeror stated, "If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine"; no response
was given.
|
Silence cannot constitute acceptance, and the offeror cannot impose a duty to respond
or refuse. Acceptance must be communicated directly to the offeror
|
Established the rule that silence does not amount to acceptance.
|
|
Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East Corporation
|
(1955) 1 QB 327
|
Contract was concluded via instantaneous communication (telex).
|
In contracts made through instantaneous communication, the contract is concluded
only upon receipt of the acceptance by the offeror.
|
Established the receipt rule for instantaneous communication.
|
|
Bhagwandas v. Girdharilal and Co.
|
MANU/SC/0065/1965
|
Issue of where the contract was formed when acceptance was by telephone.
|
For instantaneous communications (like telephone), the contract is formed where
the acceptance is received25. For postal communication, it is formed where the letter
is posted26.
|
Affirmed the place of formation for instantaneous vs. postal contracts in India.
|
|
Currie v. Misa
|
1875) LR 10 EX 153
|
Defined "valuable consideration" in the eyes of the law.
|
Consideration may encompass either a right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing
to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility suffered or
undertaken by the other.
|
Provided the classic definition of consideration as benefit to one party or detriment
to the other.
|
|
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose
|
MANU/PR/0049/1903
|
A minor executed a mortgage in favor of a money lender.
|
A minor's agreement is entirely void (void ab initio), as a minor cannot make a
legally enforceable promise.
|
The foundational Indian case establishing that a minor's contract is void
|
|
Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh
|
MANU/LA/0462/1928
|
Issue of whether estoppel can be invoked against a minor who fraudulently misrepresented
their age.
|
No estoppel can be invoked against a minor32. The defense of minority is available,
as there can be no estoppel against the law.
|
Held that the defense of minority trumps the doctrine of estoppel
|
|
Chikham Amiraju v. Chikham Seshamma
|
ILR (1918) 41 Mad 33
|
A threat of suicide was used to pressure a person into executing a document.
|
A threat of suicide constitutes coercion, which can invalidate a contract.
|
Key Indian case defining coercion to include the threat of suicide
|
|
Derry v. Peek
|
(1889) 14 AC 337
|
Issue of what constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation.
|
Fraud is defined as a false statement made knowingly, without belief in its truth,
or recklessly, regardless of its veracity.
|
Provided the classic definition of fraudulent misrepresentation.
|
|
Hadley v. Baxendale
|
MANU/ENRP/0263/1854
|
Carrier failed to deliver a broken mill shaft part, causing the mill to shut down
and lose profits.
|
Damages for breach of contract should be those arising naturally (usual course of
things) or those reasonably in the contemplation of both parties at the time of
contracting.
|
Established the two-part rule for remoteness of damages (direct and consequential).
|
|
M.C. Mehta v Union of India
|
MANU/SC/0396/1987
|
Oleum gas leak from a chemical plant; issue of liability for hazardous industries.
|
Supreme Court introduced the concept of "absolute liability" for hazardous industries,
disallowing common defenses.
|
Expanded the Rylands v Fletcher rule into the principle of absolute liability in
Indian law, especially for ultrahazardous activities.
|
Toll Free No : 1-800-103-3550
+91-120-4014521