AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2020 MCQs Questions with Solutions and Explanations at Doorsteptutor. Com Part 13

Glide to success with Doorsteptutor material for AILET : get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of AILET.

Question 85

Legal Principles:

(1) When one person signifies to another person his willingness to do or not do something (abstain) with a view to obtain the assent of such person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal or an offer.

(2) The communication of the offer is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

(3) Communication of acceptance is complete when it is put in the course of transmission to him as to be out of the power of the acceptor to withdraw the same and when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.

(4) In case of the proposer, the communication of the acceptance is complete when he puts such acceptance in the course of transmission.

(5) The communication in case of the acceptor is complete when the proposer acquires knowledge of such acceptance.

(6) An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.

Facts: G offered to sell the L fleeces of wool for a certain price. G requested that the response be made by post. This letter was misdirected by G so that it was not received for 3 days after it was sent. L decided to accept the offer and responded on the same day. This was posted on the 5th July but not received until the 9th July. However, G decided on the 8th July that as he had not received a response so decided to sell the wool to someone else. But L argued that a contract had been created as he had accepted their offer. Decide.

A. No contract was formed as L accepted the offer even before he received the offer by post. Contract will be entered upon when L had received the offer and then written to him saying that the terms were agreed.

B. The contract was entered on the 9th September when the acceptance was received by G.

C. G is free to withdraw his offer before 9th September.

D. The contract was entered on the 5th September when the acceptance was posted, not when it was received.

Question 86

Legal Principles:

(1) In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.

(2) Acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance.

Facts: TUV՚s employee performing installation on Motorola՚s premises was injured due to the negligence of Motorola employees. TUV had executed a purchase order that contained an indemnity form. First purchase order contained indemnity provision which narrowly applied to damages caused by the negligence of TUV՚s employees. It attached a broader indemnity form page which would make TUV also responsible for the negligence of Motorola employees in connection with the work. This page was marked VOID. Amendment 2 to Purchase order contained same provision and attached same additional indemnity form which this time was not marked VOID. But also contained the additional language that “acceptance should be executed on acknowledgement copy which should be returned to the buyer.” Employee was injured several months before the acknowledgement copy of the second purchase order was executed, but was in the course of performing work related to the second purchase order. Decide whether TUV liable under the broader indemnity provision.

A. TUV is liable as workers have sustained injury during the course of their employment even though TUV has not accepted the amended purchase order as it did not execute the acknowledgement.

B. Motorola՚s amendment gave a suggested mode of acceptance which did not preclude TUV՚s acceptance by another method. TUV accepted when TUV undertook performance of the work called for by the amendment with the “consent and acquiescence” of Motorola.

C. TUV is not liable under the broader indemnity provision as it did not execute the acknowledgement copy until several months after the employee sustained his injury.

D. TUV is not liable as commencement of work was acceptance to the first purchase order in which the broader indemnity provision was marked as void.

Question 87

Legal Principles:

(1) A contract can become void when: It is unfairly one-sided; it goes against public policy; its subject matter is illegal; it is impossible to perform; it unfairly restricts one side՚s actions (such as the right to work) ; one of the parties is not legally competent to enter into a binding contract.

(2) A contract is void as against public policy if: (1) it is a contract by the defendant to pay the plaintiff for inducing a public official to act in a certain manner; (2) it is a contract to do an illegal act; or (3) it is a contract that contemplates collusive bidding on a public contract.

Facts: BR Industries, a company manufacturing drills, machine parts and components thereof and a purchaser of subcontract work from other suppliers, won the bid from the HLK Company to supply certain parts to it at a specified price. BR industries then contracted with SU Co. to supply the parts under the contract for a much lower price. BR Industries then intended to keep the difference between the amount it billed the HLK Company and the amount SU Co. charged for the parts. BR Industries initiated an action for breach of contract when SU Co. failed to complete the order. In its defense, SU Co. asserts that the contract is void as against public policy because Defendant turned a profit of 84.09 % on anvils, 39.13 % on holder primers and 68.33 % on plunger supports. Did plaintiff receive too much compensation deeming it unconscionable and against public policy?

A. The contract is void as against public policy as it is a contract that contemplates collusive bidding on a public contract.

B. The Contract is void as it unfairly one sided.

C. Relative values of the consideration in a contract between business men at “arms-length” without fraud will not affect the validity of the contract.

D. Relative values of the consideration in a contract between business men will affect the validity of the contract as it amounts to abuse of dominance and unconscionable.

Developed by: