Contract Law (CLAT Legal-Aptitude): Questions 31 - 32 of 97
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 1066 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 450.00 or
Question number: 31
» Contract Law
Appeared in Year: 2012
PRINCIPLE: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
FACTS: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer
X can be held liable for fraud.
X can be held liable for misrepresentation
X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse.
X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things.
Question number: 32
» Contract Law
Appeared in Year: 2013
PRINCIPLE: Generally, an agreement without consideration is not valid. Therefore, in order to make a valid agreement, some consideration which may have some value in the eyes of law, is essentially required.
FACTS: William has an old car of which he makes seldom use. He voluntarily enters into an agreement with Smith to sell this car for rupees ten thousand. Thereafter one Anson approaches William and offers to buy that car for rupees one lac as the car was one which Anson has been searching for long. Now William wants to cancel his agreement with Smith and refuses to deliver the car to him saying that consideration (price) for the car promised by Smith is negligible and, therefore, agreement with him cannot be said to be valid one.
William can cancel his agreement with Smith as the consideration involved in that is really inadequate.
William cannot cancel his agreement with Smith as the sale of car for rupees ten thousand was voluntary and this price has some value in the eyes of law.
William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he was ignorant about the value/price of the car for which it could be sold.
William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he is entitled to get full market value/price of his car.