Alopi Prashad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India (1960): Where Commercial Hardship Ends and Frustration Begins Author: RashiStudent, Symbiosis Law School, Noida —————————————————————————– 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. The Supreme Court held that commercial hardship, price escalation, and financial loss do not amount to frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 […]
Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal (2024): Rethinking Minority Status and the Limits of Statutory Origin Author: Syed Mohd MuazStudent, Aligarh Muslim University —————————————————————————– 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. The Supreme Court’s seven-judge Constitution Bench held by a 4:3 majority that the mere fact of statutory incorporation does not disqualify an institution from being recognised
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): Decoding the Statutory Framework Behind a Minor’s Contractual Incapacity Author: Md. Kibria NurStudent, Southern University Bangladesh ————————————————————————- 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A minor’s agreement is void ab initio under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 — it has no legal existence from inception, and neither Section 64 nor Section
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]: The Case That Built the Modern Law of Negligence Author: Yashoda RajputStudent, SAGE University Bhopal ————————————————————– 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Donoghue v. Stevenson established that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer even in the absence of any contractual relationship — liability in tort is independent
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]: The Case That Built the Modern Law of Negligence Read More »
Smt. Sushila Devi and Another v. Hari Singh and Others (AIR 1971 SC 1756): Frustration, Partition, and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Author: Akansha AlangeStudent, Amity University, Mumbai ————————————————————————– 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies to executory contracts — including agreements to lease — but not to
Balfour v. Balfour [1919]: Why Domestic Promises Are Not Contracts Author: Khan Husnaara Khatoon Iqrar AhmedStudent, Amity Law School —————————————————————————————- 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. An intention to create legal relations is an essential element of a valid contract — without it, even a clear promise supported by consideration will not be legally enforceable. 2.
Balfour v. Balfour [1919]: Why Domestic Promises Are Not Contracts Read More »
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void — Not Voidable Author: Sadhana TiwariStudent, NLIU Bhopal ————————————————- 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 — it has no legal existence from the very beginning and cannot be
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void — Not Voidable Read More »
Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914]: When Fraud Cannot Override the Protection of Minority Author: JyotiStudent, Rayat Bahra College of Law ————————————————————— 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A contract entered into by a minor is void — and courts will not allow a creditor to recover money advanced under such a contract by simply re-framing the
Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914]: When Fraud Cannot Override the Protection of Minority Read More »
Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1881): Past Consideration and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Author: Krish Gaur Student,Student, Apex School of Law, Apex University, Jaipur. ————————————————————————————— 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A promise of guarantee executed after a loan has already been advanced is not legally enforceable — the prior loan constitutes past consideration, which is
Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu (1882): Third Party Consideration and the Autonomy of Indian Contract Law Author: Priyanshi Khichi Student, Indore Institute of Law ————————————————————————————————————- 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration can move from a third party — not just the promisee — which
