Practice Questions on Law of Contracts for CLAT PG

Practice Questions on Law of Contracts for CLAT PG

Passage​​ 

(Excerpted from the judgment of​​ Raja Ram vs Jai Prakash Singh)

"It must also be noted that merely because the parties were nearly related to each other no presumption of undue influence can arise. As was pointed out by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Poosathurai v. Kappanna Chettiar and others,​​ "It is a mistake (of which there are a good many traces in these proceedings) to treat undue influence as having been established by a proof of the relations of the parties having been such that the one naturally relied upon the other for advice, and the other was in a position to dominate the will of the first in giving it. Up to that point "influence" alone has been made out. Such influence may be used wisely, judiciously and helpfully. But whether by the law of India or the law of England, more than mere influence must be proved so as to render influence, in the language of the law, "undue". In Subhas Chandra (supra), it was further observed that there was no presumption of imposition merely because a donor was old and weak. Mere close relation also was insufficient to presume undue influence, observing as follows: "Before, however, a court is called upon to examine whether undue influence was exercised or not, it must scrutinise the pleadings to find out that such a case has been made out and that full particulars of undue influence have been given as in the case of fraud. See Order 6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This aspect of the pleading was also given great stress in the case of Ladli Prasad Jaiswal [1964] 1 SCR 270 above referred to. In that case it was observed "A vague or general plea can never serve this purpose; the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence, and the unfair advantage obtained by the other." Krishna Mohan (supra) is distinguishable on its own fact. The executant was undisputably over 100 years of age. The witnesses proved that he was paralytic and virtually bedridden. None of the witnesses could substantiate that the executant had put his thumb impression. The first appellate court, completely erred in appreciation of the facts and evidence in the case. There can be no application of the law sans the facts of a case. The primary ingredients of the law need to be first established by proper pleading supported by relevant​​ evidence. Cases cannot be decided on assumptions or presumptions. We do not think that the present calls for exercise of any discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution as a fourth court of appeal. In Pritam Singh it was observed: Generally speaking, this Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against. Since the present case does not in our opinion fulfil any of these conditions, we cannot interfere with the decision of the High Court, and the appeal must be dismissed."

Questions

  • In which of the following circumstances is undue influence not exercised:

  • Where one person holds a real or apparent authority over the other

  • Where he stands in a fiduciary relation with the other

  • Where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily​​ or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress

  • When something is said or done in a dishonest way to trick people

Ans. d

  • "Reciprocal" Contracts means

  • One sided contract

  • Bilateral contracts

  • Trilateral contracts

  • None of above

Ans. b

  • The judgement given in the passage has been pronounced by Justice:

  • Ashok Bhushan

  • Surya Kant

  • DY Chandrachud

  • Navin Sinha

Ans. d

  • Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, explains good faith in transactions as follows: Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.-Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a​​ position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on​​ 

  • the party who is in a position of active confidence

  • the party on whom influence is exercised

  • both a and b

  • none of the above

Ans. a

  • Which of the following is NOT necessary for an enforceable contract to exist when supported by past consideration:

  • The act that is the subject of the contract must have been requested by the promisor

  • There must have been in the contemplation of both parties that payment would have been made

  • A written contract detailing the expectation of payment is in existence before the commencement of the act

  • All the other elements of a valid contract must have existed

Ans. c

  • A successful plaintiff in an action for detenue, is, therefore entitled to the return of the goods or recovery of its value and damages for detention and is entitled to have been assessed separately:

  • the value of the goods at the date of the assessment

  • damages sustained by him up to that date

  • both (a) and (b)

  • None of these

Ans. c

  •  A, a builder, contracts to erect and finish a house by the first of January, in order that B may give possession of it at that time to C, to whom B has contracted to let it. A is informed of the contract between B and C. A builds the house so badly that, before the first of January, it falls down and has to be rebuilt by B, who in consequence, loses the rent which he was to have received from C, and is obliged to make compensation to C for the breach of his contract.

  • A must make compensation to B for the cost of rebuilding the house

  • A must make compensation to B for the rent lost

  • A must make compensation to B for the compensation made to C

  • All of them

Ans. d

  • A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by B’s influence over him as his medical attendant, to agree to pay B an unreasonable sum for his professional services.

  • B did not employs undue influence

  • B employs undue influence

  • either (a) or (b)

  • None of these

Ans. b

  • A, a ship-owner, contracts with b to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney in A’s ship, sailing on the first of January, and B pays to A, by way deposit, one-half of his passage money. The ship does not sail on the first of January and B, after being, in consequence, detained in Calcutta for some time, and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence, arriving too late in Sydney, loses a sum of money.

  • A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the passage-money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon the first

  • A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late

  • A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest and the excess, if any, of the passage-money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon the first, but not the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late

  • None of these

Ans. a

  • A contracts to marry B, being already married to C, and being forbidden by the law to which he is subject to practice polygamy. This causes loss to B

  • A need not make compensation to B for the non-performance of his promise

  • A must make compensation to B for the non-performance of his promise

  • Either (A) or (B)

  • ​​ None of these

Ans. b

 

 

 

 

 

Visit our complete collection of legal reasoning questions and posts.

Read our legal reasoning post on void agreements and the practice questions here

Read CLATapult’s post on offer and acceptance here. Also, try their mocks for more legal reasoning practice questions.

Visit CLATalogue for more legal reasoning practice questions for CLAT 2020

Got doubts about CLAT 2020? Find all your answers and much more here.

Get CLATalogue' Posts in Your Inbox