Legal Aspects of Business cases and assignment

Legal Aspects of Business cases and assignment - Transcript

Case 1 Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain Vs Boots Cash Chemists Ltd.
Relevant section-The case pertains to section 2(a) which defines ‘offer’ and this case
distinguishes between ‘an offer’ and ‘an invitation to make an offer.
Judgment and Principals laid down- The question before the Court was that whether
the goods displayed in a show- window or inside the shop, bearing a price-tag amounts
to an offer to sell the goods at the price mentioned or not. The Court held that this is
mere an invitation to make an offer on the part of the seller. Because as per section 2(a)
of the Act- a person is said to make a proposal when he signifies his willingness to do
something with a view to obtain the assent of the other person and in the case when
seller displays the goods, he is not signifying his willingness to sell with a view to
obtain the assent of the buyer rather he is signifying his willingness to sell the goods
displayed, upon getting an offer from the buyer itself. So his only intention is to invite
the buyer to make an offer to him rather than treating it as a final offer to the buyer.
Case 2 Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Relevant Section- The case pertains to Section 8
Judgment and Principals laid down- The Court pointed out that the offer made by the
defendants, was an offer to become liable to anyone who, before it was retracted,
performed the conditions stipulated in the offer i.e. the advance communication of
acceptance was not necessary in this case and the performance of conditions was suffice
and amounted to valid acceptance. Hence the Plantiff was held entitled to recover the
promised reward. Section 8 of the Indian contract Act incorporates this principal. The
other principal laid down by the Court was that where a general offer is of continuing
nature, as in this case, it will be open for acceptance by any number of persons until it is
retracted. But where an offer requires some information or trace of a missing thing ( like
the case of Lalman Shukla Vs Gauri Dutt), it is closed as soon as the first information
comes in.
Case 3 Lalman Shukla Vs Gauri Dutt
Relevant Section- The case pertains to Section 4
Judgment and Principals laid down- The Court pointed out that an offer cannot be
accepted unless and until it has been brought to the knowledge of the person to whom it
is made and hence the reward for searching a missing child could not be recovered by a
person who had traced the child without the knowledge of the offer.
Case 4 Powell Vs Lee
Relevant section- The case pertains to Section 2(b)
Judgment and Principals laid down- As per section 2(b)-the proposal is said to be
accepted only when the assent on the proposal is signified by the person to whom the
proposal is made. So only an offeree (to whom the proposal is made) or his authorized
agent (because as per principals of ‘agency’, acts of agent are considered as acts of
principal) can accept an offer. So the Court rightly held that since the resolution passed
by the board was not communicated to the plantiff by the Board or any authorized person
on its behalf, it could not give rise to a contract.
Case 5 Durga Parsad Vs Baldeo
Relevant section- The case pertains to Section 2(d) which defines consideration
Judgment and Principals laid down- As per section 2(d)- consideration must move
only at the desire of the promisor and not anyone else. As in the present case the act done
by the plantiff was not at the desire of the defendant, but at the desire of collector, the
Court rightly held that since the consideration did not move at the desire of the
defendants, this did not constitute a valid consideration and therefore the defendants
were not held liable for the promise made by them.
Case 6 Bhagwandas Vs Girdhari Lal & Co.
Relevant Section- The case pertains to interpretation of section 4 & 5 and principals laid
down by the Court relating to ‘Acceptance of an offer by Telephone or Telex’
Judgment and Principals laid down- The Court pointed out that a contract made by
telephone or telex has the same effect as an oral agreement entered into between the
parties across the table and rule of a contract through post does not apply to such
contracts. In case of acceptance by post the contract is concluded when the letter of
acceptance is posted, whereas in the case of acceptance by phone, the contract is deemed
to be complete when the offeror hears the acceptance at his end rather than when the
acceptor speaks the words of acceptance. Therefore, it is suggested that an offeree must
ensure that his acceptance of the offer is heard and understood by the party on the other
end of the line.
Case 7 Chinnaya Vs Ramaya
Relevant section- The case pertains to section 2(d)
Judgment and Principals laid down- The Court held that though in this
agreement( agreement between plantiff and defendant) no consideration is moving from
plantiff( i.e. not moving from Chinnaya but from A, the old lady) yet he can enforce this
agreement because as per section 2(d), consideration may move from promisee or any
other person. So a stranger to consideration can sue. But the point to be noted in this
case is that- instead of a direct agreement between plantiff and defendant (i.e. Chinnaya
and Ramaya), had it been an agreement between A, the old lady, and defendant
(Ramaya) to pay a sum of money to the plantiff (Chinnaya), then the plantiff would not
have been able to enforce this agreement because then the plantiff would not have been a
stranger to consideration only but he would have been a stranger to contract also. And as
per Indian Law a stranger to consideration can sue but a stranger to contract can not sue.
Case 8 Rajlucky Dabee Vs Bhootnath Mookerjee
Relevant section- The case pertains to section 25 (1)
Judgment and Principals laid down- As per section 10 of the Act no contract is valid
without consideration but section 25 of the Act lays down some exception to this rule
and as per section 25 (1) of the Act- a contract can be valid even without consideration if
it is made out of natural love and affection between the parties standing in a near relation
to each other and expressed in writing & registered under the law. The Court in this case,
did not entitle the plantiff to take the recourse of section 25(1) because as per the finding
of the Court the document had been executed not because of natural love and affection
between the parties but because of absence of it.
Case 9 Mohri Bibee Vs Dharmodas Ghose
Relevant sections- The case pertains to section 11, 64 and 65.
Judgment and Principals laid down- In this case, for the first time, the Court discussed
in detail the effects of minor’s agreement. On the question that whether a contract with
minor is void or voidable the Court said that the question whether a contract is void or
voidable presupposes the existence of a contract with in the meaning of the Act, and can
not arise in the case of an infant. Hence the agreements with the minor are void ab-initio.
The Court also held that the ‘doctrine of estoppel’ can not be evoked in case of a minor
and hence he was allowed to plead that he was a minor notwithstanding whatever he has
said at the time of entering into the agreement. On the question of restoration of benefits
as per section 64 and 65 of the Act, the Court held that these sections are applicable to an
agreement between competent parties and ‘doctrine of restitution’ has no application in
case of a minor where the agreement is void ab-initio. Hence the minor was not asked to
repay the amount of loan under section 64 and 65 of the Act.
Case 10 Narayani Vs Pyare Mohan
Relevant section- The case pertains to section 23
Judgment and Principals laid down- The question raised by the plantiff (Pyare Mohan)
was that as the object of the gift made, was to pay for past cohabitation, which was
immoral, the agreement entered into between Narayni and Gopal Lal is void, being
unlawful as per section 23 of the Act. The Court held that the agreement is valid, because
completed gift are valid even without consideration. So the question of consideration
does not arise. Second, the main object for the gift was to pay for the services rendered
by Narayani and hence is valid. So the original plaint as well as the appeal was dismissed
by single judge and division bench of the Rajsthan High Court respectively.