AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 234 - 234 of 254

Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 254 questions. Access all new questions- tracking exam pattern and syllabus. View the complete topic-wise distribution of questions. Unlimited Access, Unlimited Time, on Unlimited Devices!

View Sample Explanation or View Features.

Rs. 200.00 -OR-

How to register? Already Subscribed?

Question 234

Appeared in Year: 2018

Question

MCQ▾

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) Consideration is something that moves from the promisor, to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The Item that moves can be a right, interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.

(2) An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.

Factual Situation: MXM Co. is a building contractor who entered into an agreement with Star Heights Housing Association to refurbish a block of 27 flats. This contract was subject to a liquidated damages clause if they did not complete the contract on time. The MXM Co. engaged Hasan to do the carpentry work for an agreed price of ₹ 20,000. After six months of commencing the work, Hasan realised he had priced the job too low and would be unable to complete at the originally agreed price. He approached MXM Co. who recognised that the price was particularly low and was concerned about completing the contract on time. MXM Co. agreed to make additional payments to Hasan in return for his promise to carry out his existing obligations.

MXM Co. agreed to pay Hasan an additional ₹ 575 per flat. Hasan continued work on the flats for a further period of 6 weeks but only received an additional ₹ 5,000. He then ran out of money and refused to continue unless payment was made. MXM Co. engaged another carpenter to complete the contract and refused to pay Hasan any further sums. Hasan sued for payment under the original agreement and the subsequent agreement. MXM Co. argued that the agreement to make additional payments was unenforceable as Hasan has not provided any consideration lo make this agreement a valid contract. Decide.

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

The agreement to pay extra was unenforceable as Hasan had provided no consideration as he was already under an existing contractual duty to complete the work.

b.

Consideration was provided by Hasan in the form of conferring a benefit on the MXM Co. by helping them to avoid the penalty clause. Therefore, MXM Co. was liable to make the extra payments promised.

c.

There was no consideration provided by Hasan as to avoid the penalty clause was the main object of the contract. Therefore, MXM Co. was not liable to make the extra payments promised.

d.

MXM Co. is liable to pay compensation to Hasan as they have committed a breach of contract by employing another carpenter.

Developed by: