INDIAN CONTRACT CASE LAWS

SR. NO NAME OF CASE JUDGEMENT

OFFER
1. Lalman Shukla vs Gauri A proposal cannot be accepted unless it comes to the
Dutt (1913) knowledge of the person accepting it

2. Carlill vs carbolic smoke The court observed following points:-

ball company (1893)
Offer a can be made to the world at large and contract is made
with the person who comes forward and accept the offer

In such a case communication of acceptance is not necessary.

Performance of condition is a sufficient acceptance without
communication.

general offer is continuing in nature and it is open for

acceptance to the number of person until it is retracted

3. Hyde vs Wrench (1840) A offered to sell her estate for 20 £1,000. B offered to pay £950.
A refused. B replied immediately, accepting the original offer
of £1,000. A now refuses.

It was held that A was no longer bound by the terms of her

original offer because it had lapsed when B made the counter-
offer to the original offer.

Therefore, an offer lapses if a counter offer is made. A counter

offer is considered a fresh offer, which must be accepted in
order to give rise to a contract.

4. Upton rural District The contract can be expressed or implied. In this case the fire
Corporation Vs Powell broke out Independence farm and his some point the fire
(1942) brigade services thinking them to be free. Defendant’s house
was not in the free service zone. The court held that the
services were rendered upon an implied promise to pay.

5. Harris vs Nickerson An Advertisement for auction is mere invitation to offer.

(1873)

6. Spencer Vs Harding An Advertisement inviting tenders and quotations is an

(1870) invitation to offer.
7. Henderson Vs There must be reasonable notice to the offeree of the printed
Stevenson (1875) terms and conditions. If such notice is not given then the
offeree is not bound by such terms and condition.

8. Harvey v. Facey (1893) The difference between an “invitation to offer”, and “offer” has
been laid down . for a contract to be valid, a proposal and an
acceptance are needed and to make the contract binding.
Further, acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the
individual who is proposing because a legally enforceable
agreement requires sureness to hold from both the parties to
the contract.
9. Pharmaceutical Society In this case, the defendant, a pharmaceutical company who
of Great Britain v. Boots introduced a new method of displaying the drugs for the
Cash Chemist (1953) shoppers, which could be used for purchasing drugs, and the
plaintiff objecting to the same. The Court observed that “goods
on a display are an invitation, not an offer” instead, the
customers make an offer when they take the medicines to the
register with the cashier being under the shopkeeper to accept
the offer proposed. The Court reasoned that displaying
medicines to the customers will be treated as an “invitation to
treat”, and not as an “offer”.

10. Fisher v Bell (1960) A shopkeeper was charged for offering for sale a flick knife
prohibited by Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 s.1(1)
that he had displayed the knife in his shop window.

He was acquitted for the court held that displaying goods in

window is an invitation to treat. He and the potential buyer can
change their mind anytime.
11. Spencer v Harding Harding sent out a circular which stated an offer to the
(1870) wholesale trade and must be cash payment. Spencer claimed
that the advertisement was an offer which he should be
accepted by submitting the highest tender. However, it held
that the defendant didn’t state in the circular that they will sell
to the highest tender. A circular is not amount an offer unless
it specific indicated.
 ACCEPTANCE
12. Powell vs Lee (1908) Communication must be received from the authorised person
only. It should be communicated by the person who has
authority to accept. Communication from the unauthorised
person is no communication in the eyes of law

13. Felthouse vs bindley Acceptance must be communicated to the offer only

(1863) communication to any other person is no communication in the
eyes of law. An offer cannot impose upon the offeree the burden
of refusal of duty to reply. In other words silence cannot be
prescribed as mode of acceptance.

14. Bhagwandas vs In case where contract are concluded by postal communication

girdharilal (1966) the place of contract is where the letter of acceptance is
dispatched. In case of instantaneous communication the place
of contract is where the acceptance is heard

15. Adams v. Lindsell (1818) the defendant offered to sell the claimant fleeces of wool for a
certain price. They requested that the response be made by
post. This letter was misdirected by the defendant so that it was
not received for 3 days after it was sent. The claimant decided to
accept the offer and responded on the same day.

This was posted on the 5th September but not received until the
9th September. However the defendant decided on the 8th
September that as they had not received a response decided to
sell the wool to someone else. The claimant argued that a
contract had been created as he had accepted their offer.

The Court confirmed that the delays were entirely the fault of
the offeror. Had the letter been posted correctly then this
scenario would in all likelihood not have arisen. Furthermore the
contract was created on the 5th September when the
acceptance was posted, not when it was received. While the
agreement was not communicated to the offeror, it could not
prevent the contract being created.
16. Dunlop v Higgins,(1848) A offered, by post, to sell B some iron at a particular price. The
letter reached B two days later, and B posted a letter of
acceptance on the same day.

Due to some delay, the letter reached A after over a fortnight,

by which time the price of iron had risen. A refused to sell the
iron to B at the original price. It was held that there was a
binding contract.

In case of communication by a non-instantaneous mode of

communication, such as post or email,

(a) an offer is complete as against the acceptor when the offeror

puts it in a mode of transmission outside the control of the
offeror, and

(b) an acceptance is complete as against the offeror when the

acceptor puts it in a mode of transmission.

CONSIDERATION
17. Durga Prasad vs Baldev If an act is done at the Desire of promise then it will furnish a
(1880) good consideration .if the act is not done at the desire of
promise then it will not be considered to be a consideration.

18. Tweedle vs Atkinson It is necessary that the consideration must move from the
(1861) promise. Stranger to consideration cannot save

19. Chinnaya vs Ramya Consideration for a contract need not necessarily flow from the
(1881) parties to the contract.

20. Scotson vs Pegg (1861) A Promise to do thing which the promise is already bound to do
under a contract can be a good consideration to support the
contract.
 ESSENTIAL OF CONTACT
21. Balfour v. Balfour (1919) This case gave birth to the purpose behind the creation of the
legal reaction theory in contract law.

It was held that agreements that are made between a husband

and his wife, specifically personal family relationships, to
provide maintenance costs, and other related capitals are
generally not categorized as contracts because in general, the
parties to the agreement do not intend to enter into an
agreement that should be attending legal ends. Therefore, a
contract cannot be enforceable by nature if the parties to the
same do not intend to create legal relations with each other.

22. White v Bluett (1853) A owed a sum of money as a promissory note to his father. He
kept complaining of unequal treatment in the division of
property, till his father told him that if he stopped complaining,
he would waive A’s debt.

A stopped complaining and then refused to repay the debt when

the father asked him to do so. It was held that A’s stopping
complaining did not amount to valid consideration.

PRIVITY TO CONTRACT
23. Tweedle vs Atkinson The Doctrine of Privity of contract was followed and it was held
(1861) that no stranger to the consideration can take advantage of a
contract also made for his benefit

24. Jamna Das vs Pandit position under Indian law- Supreme Court held that Doctrine of
Ram avtar pandey (1911) Privity of contract is applicable in India and stranger to the
contract cannot sue.

25. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre D supplied tyres to a wholesaler X, on condition that any retailer
Co. v. Selfridge Ltd to whom X re-supplied the tyres should promise X, not to sell
(1915) them to the public below Ds list price. X supplied tyres to S upon
this condition, but nevertheless S sold the tyres below the list
price. It was held that there was a contract between D and X and
a contract between X and S. Therefore, D could not obtain
damages from S, as D had not given any consideration for Ss
promise to X nor was he party to the contract between D and X.
 CAPACITY TO SUE
26. Mohri Bibi vs Indian Contract Act does not specifically Lays down the fate of
Dharamodas Ghose agreement if it has been entered into by minor however it was
(1902) authoritatively settled that minors. Agreement is absolutely void
a minor can not make a promise enforceable by law. The court
held that minor is not liable under section 64 and 65 of contract
at to repay any money or compensate for any benefit

27.

chappal versus Cooper Necessary is means such thing which are necessary to maintain
a person according to his condition and life. What are necessary
is may also depend upon the status of personnel and also his
requirement at the time of actual delivery

28. Nash vs Inman (1908) The court held that in order to render minor’s state liable for
necessary to condition must be satisfied:-

Supply must be for goods reasonably necessary for his support

in life, and

He must not already have sufficient supply of necessary at the

time of delivery.

29. Leslie Ltd v. Sheill (1914) The court laid down following proposition regarding doctrine of
restitution in English law:-

If the minor obtained property or goods by misrepresenting his

age he can be made liable to restore it but only so long as it is
traceable in his possession

If minor has sold the goods are converted them he cannot be

made to repay the value of the goods

Doctrine of restitution has no application with the minor has

obtained money on cash instead of goods because restitution
stops when repayment begins
 Go to Linking App
to get full PDF
Linking App Features
Get all E-Book of
• Linking Charts
• Paperathon Booklets
• Study Material E-Notes
• Free Video Lectures Links

How to use Linking App

• Register Yourself then Login
• Subscribe to the plan on validity basis
(i.e. 1 Month, 6 Months or 12 Months)
• Go to My Courses
• Get access to all Linking Publications

How to download Linking App

You can download Linking App
via Play Store
If you can’t find the App on Play Store
Kindly use this QR Code to
download the App.

Tansukh Paliwal