Case Law On Agreement

Can a promise between married parties lead to a legally binding agreement? The real estate was not sold and the third party claimed to terminate the agreement on the grounds that the developer had not paid him rental income. The developer went to court and asked for an order that forces the third party to sell the real estate. He argued that the agreement must involve a clause that the property would be sold “within a reasonable period of time” and that the breach was a substantial violation of the agreement. You are probably in your first year and are trying to master the immense atmosphere of law that surrounds you. Or it took a while, and you want to see how much you remember from your first class of contracts here. Or you`re not in law school, but do you learn from contracts? (Just admit here that the odds are extremely slim). Whoever you are, I hope you will take advantage of this attempt to bring together almost the most important cases of Indian contract law, with obvious references to the common law of England. To learn these cases more easily and memorize, I added a few keywords at the end of each case. Without much farewell, here is the list of cases that you must know many things: in this case, Wrench, the accused offered to sell his farm to the petitioner, Hyde for 1000 dollars.

The petitioner declined the offer. The accused re-elected his offer to sell the court for $1,000 to the petitioner`s representative and stated that this was their last offer. In a letter, the petitioner offered to buy the farm for $950. The defendant refused to sell the operation at that price. The petitioner, a few days later, offered to buy the farm for an initial price of $1,000. The defendant did not reach an agreement on this matter and refused to sell the business, after which the petitioner filed a complaint for breach of contract. It was found that no contract had been entered into between the parties, as the price had not been agreed. On the contrary, offers and counter-offers were exchanged. In this case, the complainants were the operators of a mill that they had to close temporarily when the mill`s vilebrequins broke. The applicants then contacted the engine manufacturers to manufacture a new engine identically. A servant of the accused was then sent to the transporters to transport the vilebrequin to the engine manufacturers.

The servant told the accused that the mill is closed, so that the vilebrequins must be sent immediately. The accused announced that whenever the old vilebrequin was given to them, the new one would be delivered the next day at noon. Due to the delay of the accused, delivery was delayed and the mill had to remain closed for several days. In this case, because of the participation of a third party (the institution), the delay and loss could not be entirely attributable to the defendant. Whatever the increase in compensation or loss is not due to a direct infringement on the part of the defendants. In that case, the accused`s nephew disappeared and the petitioner, who was a servant among the accused, was sent to search for him for Hardwar. After the petitioner was sent, the accused made an offer to public offer r. 501 to find the missing boy. The complainant found the boy and helped him get home. He had received the money he had spent to find the boy, that is, his travel expenses.

When he returned, he worked for the accused for about six months. After six months, he sued the accused who had paid him the money for the prize previously offered. It was found that the petitioner was not entitled to the prize money, since he was only obliged to find the missing boy by the obligation he had as the accused`s servant, and the reward was announced after he had already been sent.

Please signup or login to answer this question.