Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Agreements in restraint of trade are void and unenforceable.
Fact Situation: Manu has been working as a blacksmith in his village for many decades. Somu has been undergoing training with him for the past three years. After his training is over, Somu enters into an agreement with Manu that he will not start a competing business in the same village while Manu is alive.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
This agreement is void and unenforceable since it is a restraint on trade.
This agreement is valid and enforceable since Manu is Somu’s teacher.
This agreement is valid but not enforceable after Manu’s death.
This agreement is valid and enforceable since it is to protect Manu’s interest in consideration for teaching Somu to be a blacksmith.
उत्तर
This agreement is void and unenforceable since it is a restraint on trade.
Explanation:
Under section 27 of the Indian contract Act, 1872 agreements in restraint of trade are void. It stipulates that an agreement, which restrains anyone from carrying on a lawful profession, trade, or business, is void to that extent. In the given case Manu is restraining Somu to carry on a lawful profession thus the agreement between them is void. Hence option (a) is the most appropriate.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B‘s girlfriend.
X duly posts a letter of acceptance to Y. But the letter is lost in transit by the negligence of the Post Office
Principle A proposal (offer) should be made with an intention that after its valid acceptance, a legally binding promise or agreement will be created. The test for the determination of such intention is not subjective, rather it is objective. The intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the terms of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances under which such an agreement is entered into.
As a general rule, in the case of arrangements regulating social relations, it follows as a matter of course that the parties do not intend legal consequences to follow. On the contrary, as a general rule, in the case of arrangements regulating business affairs, it follows as a matter of course that the parties intend legal consequences to follow. However, the above rules are just presumptive in nature and hence can be rebutted.
Facts: One morning while having breakfast, 'X', the father, says to 'Y' (X's son), in a casual manner, 'I shall buy a motorbike for you if you get through the CLAT.'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if the court regards it as opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Facts: 'X' promises to obtain for 'Y' employment in the public service and 'Y' promises to pay ₹500000 to 'X'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Acceptance must be given only by the person to whom the offer is made. 2. Communication of acceptance to a person who did not make the offer does not bind the offeror.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Pal sold his business to Sam without disclosing it to his customers. Mani, an old customer sent an order for goods to Pal by name. Sam, the new owner, executed the order. Mani refuses to accept the goods from Sam as he intended to deal only with Pal. In a suit by Sam against Mani:
DECISION:
Principle: Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Factual Situation: Roxanne supplies designer clothes to big showrooms and famous cloth houses. Max agrees to buy a certain consignment of only pink designer clothes for his shop due to the pink coloured theme of his famous shop. The issue cropped up when the exclusive pink coloured dresses were not delivered to Max's showroom, but to some other buyer, who had earlier contracted with Roxanne's store and all this was neither in the knowledge of Roxanne nor Max Decide whether the contract between Roxanne and Max is void?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A contract that is impossible to perform becomes void.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Surender agreed to deliver a specific quality of rice to Sonakshi identified by both of them. Before delivery, the rice was burnt by a short circuit. Is Surender discharged from the performance of the contract?
DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: The acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, leaving no ground for doubt or uncertainty. If the acceptance is conditional, no valid contract is formed, and the offer can be withdrawn at any moment until the absolute acceptance has taken place within a reasonable time of such an offer.
Factual Situation: Delhi Government conducted an auction for the sale of the license of the wine shop. X offered the highest bid which was provisionally accepted "...subject to the confirmation of Chief Commissioner who may reject any bid without assigning any reasons." Since X failed to deposit the required amount, the Chief Commissioner rejected the bid. The government held X liable for the difference between the bid offered by him and the highest bid accepted in reauction and commenced proceedings for the recovery of the sum. It was contended on behalf of the government of Delhi that X was under a legal obligation to pay the difference as it was due to his default that a resale of the excise shop was ordered and hence X was liable for the deficiency in price and all expenses of such resale which was caused by his default.
Decide, giving a reason, whether X is liable to make payment to the Delhi Government.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle:
1. The battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. When lawfully exercising the power of arrest or some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, whereupon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery.
Decision:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised the defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about the existence of RAF Wittering near his property.
Decision:
