Scribd
Upload
59 views4 pages

ICA Land Mark Cases

The document outlines key legal principles and case law related to contract law, including the necessity of intention to create legal obligations, communication of offers, and the doctrine of frustration. It discusses various cases that illustrate these principles, such as Balfour v. Balfour and Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Additionally, it addresses the implications of agreements involving minors and the concepts of quasi-contract and unjust enrichment.

Uploaded by

t962k96sxw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views4 pages

ICA Land Mark Cases

The document outlines key legal principles and case law related to contract law, including the necessity of intention to create legal obligations, communication of offers, and the doctrine of frustration. It discusses various cases that illustrate these principles, such as Balfour v. Balfour and Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Additionally, it addresses the implications of agreements involving minors and the concepts of quasi-contract and unjust enrichment.

Uploaded by

t962k96sxw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

● Balfour v.

Balfour
○ An offer must be made with an intention to create
legal obligation. If it does not create legal
obligations then it is not a valid offer.

● Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt


○ The communication of a proposal is complete
when it comes to the knowledge of the person to
whom it is made.

● R. v. Clarke, (1927)
○ It was held that if acceptor had once known of the
offer but had completely forgotten about it at time
of acceptance, he would be like a person who
had not heard of the offer at all.

● Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893)


○ Offer may be general or specific

● Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots


Cash Chemists, (1953)

● McPherson v. Appana, 1951


○ Offer and invitation to offer

● Felthouse v. Bindley
○ Communication must be communicated to the
offeror himself

● Powell v. Lex
○ Communication must be communicated by the
acceptor himself

● Kedar Nath v. Gori Mohammed, (1886)


○ Consideration must move at the desire of
promisor

● Chinnaya Ram v. Ramatya, (1881)


○ Consideration must move from the promisee or
any other person

● Tweddle v. Atkinson,(1861)
● Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge and
Co., (1915) AC 847.
● Jamuna Das v. Ram Avtar, (1911) M.C. Chacko v.
State Bank of Travancore, AIR 1970
○ Doctrine of Privity of Contract is applicable in
India
●
● Mohori Bibee v. Dharm Das Ghose's case,
○ Nature of minor's Agreement : Void
● Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh, AIR 1928 Lah 609
○ No estoppel against minor
● Leslie (R) Ltd. v. Sheill, (1914)
○ Doctrine of Restitution: In English law, if a minor
fraudulently and unjustly enriched himself, equity
demands that such enriched property or goods
be restored.
● Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal, AIR 1937 All 610
○ The court refused the view restitution made in
Khan Gul's case. If follows the principle explained
in Leslie's case.

● Raj Rani v. Prem Adib, (AIR 1949 Bom 215)


○ A minor's agreement could not be ratified on
attaining his majority as ratification relates back
to the date of making contract.

● Taylor v. Caldwell, (1863)


● Krell v. Henry
○ "Doctrine of frustration".

● Lord Mansfield in Moss v. Macfarlan, (1760)


○ QUASI-CONTRACT
○ unjust enrichment

● Hadley v. Baxendale, (1854)


○ General damages
○ Special damages

● Derry v. Peak, (1889) 14 AC 337


○ The court defined fraud as a false statement
made knowingly or without belief in its truth or
recklessly whether it be true or false.

● Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of


India, AIR 2000 SC 2003
○ Mental agony cannot be a head of damages for
breach of ordinary commercial contract.

● Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur 1954


○ Supreme Court held that in India 'doctrine of
supervening impossibility' is akin to 'doctrine of
frustration' in English law.

You might also like