Skip to main content

Unenforceable Contracts

 Unenforceable Contracts


Unenforceable contracts are those contracts which are valid contracts but because of some technical defects are rendered unenforceable by law. For a contract to be deemed enforceable, certain conditions need to be met:

Offer:

An offer is a promise to do or abstain from doing something. It must be stated in such a manner that it would lead the individual receiving it to expect a contract arising from its acceptance.  

Acceptance:

When both the parties accept the terms by mutual assent. 

Consideration:

An exchange of something of value in exchange for contractual promises. 


In case of an unenforceable contract, the court will not compel a party to act or compensate the other for not fulfilling the contract terms. A contract my be deemed unenforceable for various reasons. There are certain cases, in which some special requirements need to be met in oder to constitute a contract such as the contract must be attested or registered. If by either party, such formalities are not properly completed, that would also render the contract unenforceable by law. 


Some instances which may render a contract unenforceable are:

Lack of capacity: Sec. 10 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 requires that the parties must be competent to contract and Sec. 11 further defines who are competent to contract, “Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.” Thus, minors, persons of unsound mind and persons disqualified by law are incompetent to contract. 


Undue Influence: One of the essential of a valid contract is that it should be made at free will of the parties but undue influence goes against this principle. According to Sec 16 (1) where the relation subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other, and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other, there is said to be undue influence. 

Example: A person may be compelled to make a will unwillingly in favour of the party exercising undue influence.


Misrepresentation: When one party intentionally (fraudulently) or unintentionally (negligently) makes a false statement with the intent to compel the other party to sign the contract, it is called misrepresentation.

In Smith v Land & House Property Corp, the complainant advertised his hotel for sale, claiming that it had been leased to a "most desirable tenant." The defendants reached an agreement to purchase the hotel. The tenant was unable to pay his rent since he was insolvent. As a result, the defendants refused to fulfil their obligations under the contract, and the plaintiff sued them for specific performance. According to the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff's declaration was not an opinion, but a fact.


Public Policy: Contracts which may cause injury to society are deemed to be unenforceable. Contracts that contain provisions that are in violation of state or federal law are inherently void. Example: a company may deny an employee to take maternity leave, it goes against the public policy and hence is unenforceable.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more