Contract act test

  

Contract Act Test 

1. A bank customer took an overdraft from his account. The defendant gave a guarantee for this payment. The overdraft is void and not enforceable under the Act. The customer did not pay. He was sued. Explain the guarantee of liability in this case? (Swan v Bank of Scotland)

Solution ----in this case overdraft is void and not enforceable under any act in this case principal debtor is not liable .if principal debtor is not liable then surety is automatically not liable .so in this case both are not liable .because overdraft is void and not enforceable under the act .

2. The defendant was invited to guarantee the credibility of an employee. But that employee was dismissed from the job due to dishonesty. This fact was not told to the guarantor. After the guarantee he was kept on the job and he committed fraud/embezzlement in the accounts? The guarantor was sued for damages? State the responsibility of the guarantor in this case? (London General Omnibus Company v Holloway)

Solution -----surety is liable if everything is disclosed before him .here essential fator had been concealed for contract .the previous facts of fraud had not been disclosed . Surety was deceived indirectly.to become surety every fact should be known to surety before enter into a contract.

3.plaintiff was in an aeroplane ✈️ with his two pets 🐕 dogs .he wanted to keep these dogs with him .but airlines denied and they kept them dogs in cargo with their full safety assurance .one of dogs died there and second dogs  had become unconscious due to to suffocation .explain liability of airlines in this case with appropriate legal concept and sections .

Solution ----in this situation plaintiff  can take compensation from respondent .this case related with section 73 of Indian Contract Act . respondent had committed with plaintiff for the security of the dogs while the know about nearest damage .so plaintiff had been compensated  for price of dogs and his mental agony 

4.(Avery versus Bowdan )

Plaintiff was a ship 🚢 company and respondent was a trader .he hired company ship . respondent promised him to  give his goods within 45 days .when ship reached there ,there was no goods .the captain continued to request for goods.war had been started there .so to load goods has become illegal .captain had sued for his fare . explain that liability in above circumstances.....

Solution

In this captain cannot take any compensation for breach of contract .to load goods has become illegal due to war within 45 days .so respondent was not responsible in any case .if captain had wanted ,he would have  filed a case within 45 days for any  breach of contract .

5. M.sham singh versus state of Masoor 

Scholarship had been given to To a student M by government. With this condition that he will have to accept the job  within six months if government gave him .if he breaches this contract he will have to return the entire money .at his request the government had extended this time to one year.he came to India within one year and returned with permission of government.after one year he had started his job in America.

Government has sued  to take scholarship. Explain this problem with legal concept and sections 

Solution ----this problem related with section 63 of Indian Contract Act.in this case M had requested to Government to extend the time .so he was liable to give his got scholarship . according section 63 promisee may dispense with or remit performance of promise .if Government had. Given time willingly ,he would have not given his scholarship .