The word “rescission” derives from the Latin term rescissio rescindere, meaning to cut or tear open. Under section 27(1) a person interested in a contract may file a suit to rescind the contract. The court ma adjudge rescission in the following cases-
(1) Where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff
(2) Where the contract is unlawful for the causes not apparent on its face and the defendant is more to be blamed than the plaintiff .
The word countermand implies a specific and unequivocal cancellation of the contract by one party. The cancellation should be communicated within the same manner as a proposal. The proper of cancellation is accessible underneath Section nineteen of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 wherever the consent
…show more content…
By any person interested in contract means any person whose interest may be affected by the contract e.g. Legal representatives, successors etc. Under section (2) of the Indian contract act, 1872, an agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the party’s thereto, but no at the option of the others is a voidable contract.” Under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, “when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the of the party whose consent was so caused .”
Under section 19(A) of the Indian Contract Act, “when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused”. Under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act in case of contract by fraud or misrepresentation, the party whose consent was so caused may insist that the contract shall be performed and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if he representation made had been true.
Rescission where Specific performance for sale or lease of immovable property
The court refused to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract because “the court felt the contract was extremely one-sided. [ Also], it was wrong for Campbell to ask for the court’s help in enforcing this unconscionable bargain (one that “shocks the conscience of the court”)” (Rogers,
The issue in this case was whether California and Hawaiian Sugar Company could recover the liquidated damages from Sun Ship. Where there is a contract between the parties for liquidated damages and d there were no misrepresentations or unfair dealing in creating the contract,
The McIntyre vs. Balentine is one of the landmark cases in the United States because of its contribution to the adoption of a system of modified comparative fault in Tennessee. Based on this system, a plaintiff may receive compensation for damages where his/her fault is less than the defendant’s fault. Notably, the recovery of damages by the plaintiff is lessened to reflect his/her extent of fault. In situations involving several tortfeasors, a plaintiff’s recovery of damages is valid so long as his/her fault is less than the total fault of all tortfeasors (“Comparative Fault & The Empty Chair”, n.d.). The lawsuit was determined on the basis of contributory negligence doctrine and comparative negligence. The application of these doctrines as fueled by the need to determine the essential difference in the fault or legal duty between a party or non-party and negligent tortfeasor.
"A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. In other words, when promises have the status of contract, the contracting party harmed by a breach of the contract is entitled to obtain legal remedies against the breaching party" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 320)
This is where the individuals exercise their rights to seek compensations for damages or injuries. Also this is a law that is not controlled by the judges based on previous things that had happen in the past.
In this case a purchaser of an electric clothes dryer brings a law suit against Whirlpool (the manufacturer of the dryer) and Sears (the seller of the dryer) for fire damages that caused the purchasers home and possessions to burn down. The purchaser sued Whirlpool for negligence in the manufacturing of the dryer, and Sears for breach of implied warranty for merchantability. The case then moved to trial, and Whirlpool and Sears both motioned for a directed verdict. The motion was granted to Whirlpool, but not to Sears.
contract “refers to a contract drafted by one party in a position of power, leaving the weaker party
(Drabiak-Syed, p. 181) This was an act of deception for personal gain. While there may have been a written contract, it failed to meet the element of acceptance on part of the Havasupai tribe. Acceptance being that the person who was offered the contract must be made aware of it, accepted it under reasonable circumstances, and has the intention to accept it. (US Legal,
Tort is a wrong that involves a breach of civil duty owed to someone else.
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
Even though the principal does not authorize, ratify, participate in, or know of the misconduct, he/she may be held for an agent’s tort committed in the course and scope of the agent’s employment. As noted in Case Study 1, an agent is to comply with all lawful instructions received from the principal and persons designated by the principal concerning agent’s actions on behalf of the principal. A principal who is under a duty to provide protection is subject to liability to such others for harm caused to them by the failure of such agent to perform the duty. A principal is not relieved from the separable part of a contract which he/she authorized the agent to make by the fact that the agent under took. Even where the agent’s unauthorized act constitutes a fraud on both the principal and the third person, the partial validity rule is applicable.
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
This judgment given set criterion which is still been used in the modern court system and due to this case it was developed that an offer of contract can be unilateral and doesn’t have to be made to a specific party only. Also it was developed to that the acceptance of an offer does not require a notification and that once the concerned party purchases the product the contract is active then and there itself. And it was also established that purchase of an item is a fine example of consideration and therefore makes it a valid contract. (Smith, 2000).
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,