Cases

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): Decoding the Statutory Framework Behind a Minor’s Contractual Incapacity

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): Decoding the Statutory Framework Behind a Minor’s Contractual Incapacity Author: Md. Kibria NurStudent, Southern University Bangladesh ————————————————————————- ๐Ÿ’ก 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A minor’s agreement is void ab initio under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 โ€” it has no legal existence from inception, and neither Section 64 nor Section

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): Decoding the Statutory Framework Behind a Minor’s Contractual Incapacity Read More ยป

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]: The Case That Built the Modern Law of Negligence

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]: The Case That Built the Modern Law of Negligence Author: Yashoda RajputStudent, SAGE University Bhopal ————————————————————– ๐Ÿ’ก 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 โ€” liability in tort is independent

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]: The Case That Built the Modern Law of Negligence Read More ยป

Smt. Sushila Devi and Another v. Hari Singh and Others (AIR 1971 SC 1756): Frustration, Partition, and the Limits of Contractual Obligation

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 ————————————————————————– ๐Ÿ’ก 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies to executory contracts โ€” including agreements to lease โ€” but not to

Smt. Sushila Devi and Another v. Hari Singh and Others (AIR 1971 SC 1756): Frustration, Partition, and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Read More ยป

Balfour v. Balfour [1919]: Why Domestic Promises Are Not Contracts

Balfour v. Balfour [1919]: Why Domestic Promises Are Not Contracts Author: Khan Husnaara Khatoon Iqrar AhmedStudent, Amity Law School —————————————————————————————- ๐Ÿ’ก 3 Quick Takeaways 1. An intention to create legal relations is an essential element of a valid contract โ€” 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 ยป

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void โ€” Not Voidable

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void โ€” Not Voidable Author: Sadhana TiwariStudent, NLIU Bhopal ————————————————- ๐Ÿ’ก 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 โ€” it has no legal existence from the very beginning and cannot be

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void โ€” Not Voidable Read More ยป

Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914]: When Fraud Cannot Override the Protection of Minority

Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914]: When Fraud Cannot Override the Protection of Minority Author: JyotiStudent, Rayat Bahra College of Law ————————————————————— ๐Ÿ’ก 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A contract entered into by a minor is void โ€” 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 ยป

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1881): Past Consideration and the Limits of Contractual Obligation

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. ————————————————————————————— ๐Ÿ’ก 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A promise of guarantee executed after a loan has already been advanced is not legally enforceable โ€” the prior loan constitutes past consideration, which is

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1881): Past Consideration and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Read More ยป

Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu (1882): Third Party Consideration and the Autonomy of Indian Contract Law

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 ————————————————————————————————————- ๐Ÿ’ก 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration can move from a third party โ€” not just the promisee โ€” which

Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu (1882): Third Party Consideration and the Autonomy of Indian Contract Law Read More ยป

Felthouse v. Bindley [1862]: When Silence Is Not Consent

Felthouse v. Bindley [1862]: When Silence Is Not Consent Author: Rashneet KaurStudent, Apex University, Jaipur ————————————————————————————————————- 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Silence cannot amount to acceptance in contract law โ€” an offeror cannot impose a contract on another person simply by declaring that their silence will be treated as consent. 2. For a binding contract to

Felthouse v. Bindley [1862]: When Silence Is Not Consent Read More ยป

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorai Mohammed (1886)

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorai Mohammed (1886): Custom, Equity, and the Protection of Tenant Rights Author: Shreya JaiswalStudent, Usha Martin University 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Long and continuous possession of agricultural land, when coupled with regular payment of rent and local custom, can give rise to enforceable occupancy rights โ€” even without an express statutory provision.

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorai Mohammed (1886) Read More ยป