Law of Contracts and Torts
Contract and tort questions test doctrine applied to facts: what makes an agreement enforceable, when performance is excused, and who bears the cost of harm.
Contracts
- Formation: offer, acceptance, consideration (s.2(d)), capacity, free consent (s.14) and lawful object (s.23) under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. An agreement without consideration is void except under ss.25(1)–(3).
- Void, voidable, illegal: a voidable contract is enforceable until avoided (coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation); a void agreement never creates rights.
- Frustration: s.56 excuses performance when a supervening event makes it impossible or unlawful without the promisor's fault (Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, 1954). Mere hardship or expense does not frustrate (Tsakiroglou v. Noblee Thorl).
- Breach and damages: s.73 codifies remoteness (Hadley v. Baxendale); s.74 covers stipulated sums and requires proof of loss for actual damages (Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, 2015); Fateh Chand distinguishes a penalty from a genuine pre-estimate.
- Specific relief: under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (amended 2018), specific performance is the rule for immovable property contracts, subject to ss.14 and 16.
Torts
- Negligence requires duty, breach, causation and damage. Strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) carries exceptions; absolute liability for hazardous enterprises (M.C. Mehta, 1987) does not.
- Defences: volenti non fit injuria, contributory negligence, act of God, statutory authority.
Worked example
A contracts to sell land; before conveyance a statute prohibits the intended use, making performance unlawful. Section 56 discharges the contract by supervening illegality, so neither party can claim damages for breach; an advance is recoverable under s.65 as restitution. If the land merely became more valuable, there is no frustration.
Traps
- Reading s.74 as barring damages absent a pre-estimate.
- Applying absolute liability to every tort.