AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 223 - 223 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 223

Appeared in Year: 2020



Legal Principles:

(1) In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.

(2) Acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance.

Facts: TUV՚s employee performing installation on Motorola՚s premises was injured due to the negligence of Motorola employees. TUV had executed a purchase order that contained an indemnity form. First purchase order contained indemnity provision which narrowly applied to damages caused by the negligence of TUV՚s employees. It attached a broader indemnity form page which would make TUV also responsible for the negligence of Motorola employees in connection with the work. This page was marked VOID. Amendment 2 to Purchase order contained same provision and attached same additional indemnity form which this time was not marked VOID. But also contained the additional language that “acceptance should be executed on acknowledgement copy which should be returned to the buyer.” Employee was injured several months before the acknowledgement copy of the second purchase order was executed, but was in the course of performing work related to the second purchase order. Decide whether TUV liable under the broader indemnity provision.


Choice (4)Response


TUV is not liable under the broader indemnity provision as it did not execute the acknowledgement copy until several months after the employee sustained his injury.


Motorola՚s amendment gave a suggested mode of acceptance which did not preclude TUV՚s acceptance by another method. TUV accepted when TUV undertook performance of the work called for by the amendment with the “consent and acquiescence” of Motorola.


TUV is liable as workers have sustained injury during the course of their employment even though TUV has not accepted the amended purchase order as it did not execute the acknowledgement.


TUV is not liable as commencement of work was acceptance to the first purchase order in which the broader indemnity provision was marked as void.

Developed by: