Precedents

Can the English law and judgment be

used by independent Indias courts?
To the extent this Act deals with a subject, it is
exhaustive upon the same and it is not permissible to
import the principles of English law dehors the
statutory provisions; Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram
Bangur & Co [1954] SCR 310, AIR 1954 SC 44
unless the statute is such that it cannot be understood
without the aid of English law; State of West Bengal v
BK Mondal [1962] 2 Supp SCR 876, AIR 1962 SC 779
or where any matter cannot be brought within the
provisions of the Contract Act. In regard to the law of
contract, the courts in India have taken guidance from
the common law of England where no statutory
provision to the contrary is in existence; Firm
Kanhaiyalal v Dineshchandra AIR 1959 MP 234

Can foreign Courts judgments be used

by Independent Indias Courts?
Although none of these decisions are binding upon the courts in India,
they are authorities of high persuasive value to which the Indian courts
may legitimately turn for assistance. Whether the rules laid down in
any of these cases can be applied by the courts, must however, be
judged in the context of the Indian laws and legal procedure and the
practical realities of litigation in India.
Forasol v Oil and Natural Gas Commission AIR 1984 SC 241, (1984)
Supp SCC 263
The decisions of Australian, Canadian and other Commonwealth courts
and of the Courts of the United States of America, when relevant, will
have persuasive authority and will be listened to in courts in India with
attention and respect, as judgments of eminent men accustomed to
expound the principles of jurisprudence similar to our own.
CP Motor Spirit Act IN RE. AIR 1939 FC 1; Tan Bug Taim v Collector of
Bombay AIR 1946 Bom 216

Intention to create legal relationship

Balfour v. Balfour (1918-19) ALL ER 860.
Jones v. Padavattan, (1969) 2 All ER 616.
Mc gregor v Mcgregor, (1888) 21 QBD 424.
Merritt v. Merrit (1970) 1 WLR 211.
Simpkins v Pays, (1955) 3 All ER10.
Examples: contract for sharing house
Does Indian Law require Intention to create
legal relationship?
CWT v. Abdul Hussain, (1968) 3 SCC 562, 569.

Proposal/Offer
Specific Offer
Weeks v. Tybald, (1605) 75 ER 982.
(Overruled)
General Offer
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
(1893) 1 QB 256.
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt , (1913)
11 All LJ 489.

Other elements of proposal

Objective test of intention - Bowerman v.
Association of British Travel Agents Ltd., [1997]
CLC 451.
Invitation to treat- mere use of word offer or
invitation is not conclusive.
Advertisement for tenders and
Continuing/standing offers
Proposal must be certain
Terms of proposal- essential and ancillary
conditions
Proposal subject to contract- no proposal

Acceptance
Acceptance is final and unqualified expression of assent
to the terms of an offer. Pollock & Mulla
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1891-4] All ER 127
Harvey v. Facey [1893] AC 552
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913) 11 All. LJ 489
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash
Chemists (Southern) Ltd. (1952) 2 All. ER 456
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal
Parshottamdas & Co. A.I.R. 1966 SC 543
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB 869
Powell v. Lee, (1908) 24 TLR 606.
Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co., (1877) 2 App Cas
666 HL.

Related aspects of
acceptance
mere mental resolve to accept an
offer
External manifestation or overt act
Acceptance by Conduct
Communication
of acceptance to
who?
Communication
of Acceptance by
whom?
Burden of refusal

CONSIDERATION
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie
Mahomed (1886) 7 I.D. 64 Cal.
Doraiswami Iyer v. Arunachala Ayyar
(1935) 43 L.W. 259 (Mad.)
Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali AIR 1914
All. 22
Venkata Chinnaya Rau v.
Venkataramaya Garu (1881) 1 I.J.
137 (Mad.)

Privity of contract
Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan v.
Nawab Husaini Begam (1910) 37 I.A.
152

CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose
(1903) 30 I.A. 114
Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh AIR 1928
Lah. 609
Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal AIR
1937 All. 610

FREE CONSENT
Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (1923) 51 I.A. 101
SUBHAS CHANDRA v. GANGA PRASAD AIR 1967 SC 878
LAKSHMI AMMA v. TALENGALANARAYANA BHATTA (1970) 3
SCC 159
TARSEM SINGH v. SUKHMINDER SINGH (1998) 3 SCC 471
GHERULAL PARAKH v. MAHADEODAS MAIYA AIR 1959 SC
781
NIRANJAN SHANKAR GOLIKARI v. CENTURY SPINNING &
MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. AIR 1967 SC 1098
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LIMITED v. BROJO NATH GANGULY (1986) 3 SCC 156
(AIR 1986 SC 1571)

Distinction between the expressions

void and voidable
DHURANDHAR PRASAD SINGH v. JAI
PRAKASH UNIVERSITY AIR 2001 SC
2552

DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACT
SATYABRATA GHOSE v. MUGNEERAM
BANGUR & CO. AIR 1954 SC 44
M/s. ALOPI PARSHAD AND SONS LTD. v.
UNION OF INDIA AIR 1960 SC 588
PUNJ SONS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
AIR 1986 Del. 158
EASUN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. THE
FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS
TRAVANCORE LTD. AIR 1991 Mad. 158

REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF

CONTRACT
HADLEY v. BAXENDALE (1843-60) All ER Rep.460
A. K. A. S. JAMAL v. MOOLLA DAWOOD, SONS, AND COMPANY
(1915) 20 C.W.N. 105
KARSANDAS H. THACKER v. M/S. THE SARAN ENGINEERING CO.
LTD. AIR 1965 SC 1981
M/s. MURLIDHAR CHIRANJILAL v.
M/s. HARISHCHANDRA DWARKADAS AIR 1962 SC 366
MAULA BUX v. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1970 SC 1955
SHRI HANUMAN COTTON MILLS v. TATA AIR CRAFT LIMITED 1969
(3) SCC 522
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. UNION OF INDIA AIR
2000 SC 2003
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. v. SAW PIPES LTD. 2003
(4) SCALE 92

QUASI-CONTRACTS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. B.K.
MONDAL AND SONS AIR 1962 SC 779