contract case laws notes | Study notes Law

CONTRACTS CASES

REVOCATION IS INEFFECTIVE:

1) alfred schonlank v s chettiar

E-CONTRACT:

2) Trimex international FZE ltd Dubai v Vedanta Aluminum Ltd

FACTS:

Trimex offered, via an email, the supply of bauxite to VAL which, after several

exchanges of e-mails, was subsequently accepted by latter, confirming the supply of

5 shipments of bauxite from Australia to India. Though a draft contract had also been

prepared but it yet needed to be formalised. After VAL received first consignments

of goods, it requested Trimex to hold back next consignment of goods so as to

enable them to check bauxite’s utility value. However, on same day, ship owners

nominated the ship for loading the cargo. Later when contract was cancelled by

Trimex, it claimed damages paid to ship owners from VAL which latter refused by

denying any contract.

ISSUE:

Whether there was any valid subsisting contract between the parties in absence of

any formal contract?

HELD:

Once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal

contract has not been prepared by the parties does not affect either the acceptance

of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof.

A contract is said to be concluded when parties agree as to the ‘essential terms’ of

the contract though minor details can be left over for them to decide later, albeit

subject to satisfaction of other requirements as provided by S.10: without such

essential terms being decided, contract cannot be enforced by law as it is deemed

to be incomplete.

The SC held that all essential ingredients required for enforcing these kinds of

shipment contracts were decided by parties including price, quantity, product

specifications, delivery and payment terms, discharge port, shipment lots, demurrage

rate, quality benchmark, applicable arbitration laws, etc. Further, minute to minute

correspondences exchanged b/w the parties clearly show that both the parties were

clearly aware of the various terms of the contract and were ad idem ( S.13) w.r.t.

those.

Communication of acceptance, according to S.4, was complete as against VAL, as and

when confirmation of 5 shipment lots came to the knowledge of Trimex. Further, the

acceptance was unconditional and unqualified (S.7): “We confirm the deal for 5

shipments”.

MINOR:

3) Sadiq Ali Khan v Jai Kishori

Partial preview of the text

Download contract case laws notes and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CONTRACTS CASES

REVOCATION IS INEFFECTIVE:

alfred schonlank v s chettiar E-CONTRACT:
Trimex international FZE ltd Dubai v Vedanta Aluminum Ltd FACTS: Trimex offered, via an email, the supply of bauxite to VAL which, after several exchanges of e-mails, was subsequently accepted by latter, confirming the supply of 5 shipments of bauxite from Australia to India. Though a draft contract had also been prepared but it yet needed to be formalised. After VAL received first consignments of goods, it requested Trimex to hold back next consignment of goods so as to enable them to check bauxite’s utility value. However, on same day, ship owners nominated the ship for loading the cargo. Later when contract was cancelled by Trimex, it claimed damages paid to ship owners from VAL which latter refused by denying any contract. ISSUE: Whether there was any valid subsisting contract between the parties in absence of any formal contract? HELD: Once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal contract has not been prepared by the parties does not affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof. A contract is said to be concluded when parties agree as to the ‘essential terms’ of the contract though minor details can be left over for them to decide later, albeit subject to satisfaction of other requirements as provided by S.10 : without such essential terms being decided, contract cannot be enforced by law as it is deemed to be incomplete.  The SC held that all essential ingredients required for enforcing these kinds of shipment contracts were decided by parties including price, quantity, product specifications, delivery and payment terms, discharge port, shipment lots, demurrage rate, quality benchmark, applicable arbitration laws, etc. Further, minute to minute correspondences exchanged b/w the parties clearly show that both the parties were clearly aware of the various terms of the contract and were ad idem ( S.13 ) w.r.t. those.  Communication of acceptance, according to S.4 , was complete as against VAL, as and when confirmation of 5 shipment lots came to the knowledge of Trimex. Further, the acceptance was unconditional and unqualified ( S.7 ): “ We confirm the deal for 5 shipments ”. MINOR:
Sadiq Ali Khan v Jai Kishori

There can be no estoppel against a minor. If a minor falsely represents himself to be of age and induces another to contract with him, he can still plead that he was a minor at the time of entering into such an agreement. The minor is not estopped from setting up the defense of minority or infancy. Otherwise, there will be indirect enforcement of the contract void ab initio. There is no estoppel working against the minor simply because there can be no estoppel working against the minor simply because there can be no estoppel against a statute. Law of contracts seeks to protect underage persons from contractual liability and the doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to defeat that policy. NO LIABILITY IN TORT OR CONTRACT ARISING IN CONTRACT

burnard v haggis A minor’s agreement is invalid of all its effects. A minor is not capable of giving consent and thus there being no good consent, it could be laid down no change in the position or status of the parties. It is to be noted that a minor cannot be held liable for anything which would indirectly enforce his agreement. Therefore, one cannot convert a contract into a tort to enable the suit against a minor. The Calcutta High Court in a case said- “If the tort is directly connected with the contract and is the means of effecting it and is a parcel of the same transaction, the minor is not liable in tort”. Thus, under this principle, the minor is not held liable in tort. However, when the tort committed is free from the contract and which is not directly connected with the contract, the fact that a contract is also involved will not release the minor from his liabilities. This can be explained through the case of Burnard v. Haggis. The facts of the are as follows- The defendant who was an undergraduate and a minor lent a horse for the purpose of going for a ride. He clearly stated that he did not want a horse for jumping. The defendant then gave the horse to his friend who used the horse for jumping, with the result that it fell and was injured. The defendant was held responsible under tort as the act resulting in injury to the horse was outside the purview of the contract, and in indirect relation with the contract. It was held that the infant was liable as the act which caused the injury was outside the range of the contract and could not be used to prove that it was a breach of the contract. It was not an abuse of the contract.
jennings v rundall BRIEF OF THE CASE The defendant was minor and hired a horse to be ridden for a short journey and took it on a much longer journey, with the result it was injured. It was held that the

Dharmodas Ghose (minor) mortgaged some of his properties in favor of Brahmo Dutt (money-lender) and received a certain sum of money. The whole process was carried out through Kedar Nath(advocate) with no direct involvement of Brahmo Dutt. During the execution of the mortgage deed, Dharmodas Ghose was an infant/minor and the fact of his infancy was known to Kedar Nath as the mother of Dharmodas Ghose send a letter informing about the same which was fully acknowledged by Kedar Nath, and yet he continued with the execution of the deed. Thereafter the mother of Dharmodas Ghose filed a legal suit for declaring the deed void, as Dharmodas Ghose was a minor. A second appeal was made in the High Court. RULE Contract Act : Section 10, section 11, section 64, section 65. ISSUE Whether the contract by a minor be considered void or voidable? Whether Dharmodas Ghose is liable for the repayment of the amount received by him? DECISION After analyzing various relevant provisions of the law, the court came to the following conclusion- that as per section 11 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 minors are incompetent to contract and any minor’s agreement is absolutely void. Therefore, relief cannot be provided under section 64 or even section 65 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 as both provisions specify that the existence of an agreement or a contract by competent parties is necessary and in the present case, it is concluded that there was no such agreement.

Khangul v Lakha Singh FACTS The defendant (minor) intentionally misrepresented himself as an adult and agreed with the plaintiff for the sale of his property. The plaintiff paid him a certain sum of money and was ready to pay the balance amount, but the defendant refused to furnish the possession of the property to the plaintiff, which led to this case. ISSUE Whether the doctrine of estoppel applies to minors?

Whether the defendant can refuse to perform his part of the contract and additionally keep the benefit (consideration) received by him? ICA - Section 10, section 11, section 65 DECISION The courts concluded that the doctrine of estoppel cannot apply to minors as it would cause absurdity and injustice. IN INDIA, THE COURT HELD THAT THE MINOR SHOULD REFUND THE MONEY BEFORE ALLOWING HIM TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY. The court relied on Jenning v. Rundall which stated that protection provided to minors should be used as a shield and not as sward, therefore exercising their equitable jurisdiction, the courts restored the status of both the parties which they possessed before the formation of contract and stated “it would be sheer injustice if an infant keeps not only property but also the money received under the contract. As the transaction is wiped out is only fair that both parties should revert and, in this case, restitution is not provided because there is a contract instead it is provided there is none and both parties should revert to original status”. MINOR

jamuna bai v vasanta rao Parents are not liable for the agreement made by the minor whether the agreement for the purchase of necessaries, But parents can be made liable when the minor is acting as agent for the parents.
Raj Rani v Prem Adia Father of raj rani (minor) came into a contract with the film producer on behalf of RR the father signed the contract but the producer didn’t assigned any role. It is a service law but it is not applicable in India. The Bombay high court held that neither she nor her father could sue on the promise if it was
Robert v Grey FACTS: Roberts was a professional billiard player who agreed to take Gray on a world tour playing billiards to teach Gray how to play billiards. It was agreed that Roberts will pay all the expenses associated with the tour and be reimbursed out of the money made on the tour. Whilst the contract was still executory, a disagreement ensued

RECTIFICATION OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT

Gobind ram v piram dutta UNSOUND MIND (section 12) 17) inder singh v parmeshwari dhari singh
lingaraj v Parvathi

contract case laws notes, Study notes of Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download contract case laws notes and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

CONTRACTS CASES

REVOCATION IS INEFFECTIVE:

RECTIFICATION OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT