Skip to main content

1. Contract Law Cases (Indian Contract Act, 1872)

Case 1: Mohiri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)

Issue:

  • A minor named Dharmodas Ghose fraudulently represented himself as an adult and entered into a mortgage agreement with a moneylender.
  • Later, the minor refused to repay the loan, claiming that the contract was void as he was underage.
  • As per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a minor’s contract is void ab initio (invalid from the beginning).
  • A minor cannot be held liable for any obligations under a contract.

Outcome:

  • The court ruled that the moneylender had no right to recover the money, as the contract itself was void.
  • This case established that a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract under Indian law.

Case 2: Leslie vs. Sheill (1914)

Issue:

  • A minor took a loan from Leslie, falsely claiming that he was an adult.
  • When the lender found out the truth, he sued the minor to recover the amount.
  • The court ruled that a minor cannot be sued for fraud if the contract is void.
  • A minor cannot be forced to return benefits gained under a void contract.

Outcome:

  • The court refused to enforce repayment, reinforcing the principle that contracts with minors are unenforceable.

Case 3: Harvey vs. Facey (1893)

Issue:

  • Harvey sent a telegram to Facey asking, "Will you sell me your property? Quote the lowest price."
  • Facey replied, "Lowest price: £900."
  • Harvey then wrote, "I accept your offer." Facey refused to sell, arguing there was no valid contract.
  • A quotation of price is not an offer but an invitation to treat (an invitation for negotiations).
  • A contract is only formed when an offer is made and accepted unconditionally.

Outcome:

  • The court ruled that Facey's response was not an offer, and Harvey's acceptance did not create a contract.
  • A contract must have a clear offer and acceptance for it to be legally enforceable.

Case 4: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs. Boots Cash Chemists (1953)

Issue:

  • Boots Chemists operated a self-service store where medicines were displayed on shelves.
  • The Pharmaceutical Society argued that this practice violated the law, as certain medicines could only be sold by a pharmacist.
  • The question was whether picking up an item from a shelf constituted a valid contract.
  • Goods displayed in a store are not an offer but an invitation to treat.
  • A contract is formed only when the buyer takes the goods to the cashier and makes payment.

Outcome:

  • The court ruled that the sale was completed only at the cashier’s counter.
  • The seller can refuse to sell an item before payment is made.
No Comments
Back to top