Sub : Corporate Law
In the following statements only one is correct statement. Explain Briefly?
i) ii) iii)
An invitation to negotiate is a good offer. A quasi-contract is not a contract at all. An agreement to agree is a valid contract.
Ans : i) Incorrect : - Its not an offer only an indication of a willingness to consider any offers and counter offers. ii) Correct : A quasi contract is a fictional contract created by courts for equilable, not contractual purposes. A quasi – contract is not an actual contract, but is a legal substitute for a conterformed to impose equity between two parties the concept of a quasi – contract that show have been formed, even through in actually it was net. It is used when a court finds it appropriate to crecite an obligation upon a non – contracting party to avoid injusand to ensure fciwiness. It is invoved in circumstances of unjust enrichment an is connected with the concept of restitutes. iii). Incorrect : All contracts are agreement to all agreement not contracts. A
contract is a legally binding agreement relationship that exist between two or more parties to do obstain from perfoming certain acts. An agreement is form of ceios reference between different parties, which may be written, oral and lies upon the no of the parties for its fulfillment rather the being in anyway enforceable. It follows, therefore, that the loss of profit here cannot reasonnily be considered such a consequence of the breach of contract as could have been family and reasonably contemplated by both the parties when they made this contract.
A ship-owner agreed to carry to cargo of sugar belonging to A from Constanza to Busrah. He knew that there was a sugar market in Busrah and that A was a sugar merchant, but did not know that he intended to sell the cargo, immediately on its arrival. Owning to Shipment‟s default, the voyage was delayed and sugar fetched a lower price than it would have done had it arrived on time. A claimed compensation for the full loss suffered by him because of the delay. Give your decision. Explain Briefly?
A can claim ordinary damages. Loss of profits is a special less and can be claimed only if the other party was aware of the possibility of such a loss. In the absence of any expiicit communication, we have to infer what could have been in the contemplation of the parties from their actions. The court reasoned that the carriers had no way of knowing that a would loose profits if the shipments was delayed. But it is obvious that, in the great multitude of cases of sending off sugar to third person by career under ordinary circumstances such consequences would not, in all probability have occurred.. Such compensation is not be given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged (any person) injured by the failure to discharged it is entitled to receive the some compensation from the party in default as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract .
The proprietors of a medical preparation called the “Carbolic Smoke Ball” published in several newspapers the following advertisement:“£ 1000 reward will be paid by the
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza after having used the Smoke Ball three times daily for two weeks according to printed directions supplied with each ball. £ 1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank showing our sincerity in the matter. . On the faith in this advertisement, the plaintiff bought a Smoke Ball and used it as directed. She was attacked by influenza. She sued the company for the reward. Will she succeed? Explain Briefly Ans : She wire not succeed. The facts show that there was no binding contract between the parties. The case is not like, Williams...