Pls validate responses

Conceptual and Application Assignment-1: (25 Marks)

1. Rita has a 'self-service system' in her shop. Sakshi took a basket and picked articles of her choice into the basket and reached the cashier for payments. The cashier refused to accept the price. Can Rita be compelled to sell the said articles to Sakshi? Comment.

Response 1 - No, Rita cannot be forced to sell. A shopkeeper displaying items is a concept of invitation to offer thus he/she has authority to fix prices anything equal or below mrp. Thus, here Sakshi can't force Rita to sell the goods to her. If forced to sell, that's a point of coercion and the agreement would become voidable at the option of the aggrieved party.

2. Saurabh, a minor, sold certain properties to Anil and received Rs. 50,000 as part of purchase money. Subsequently, Saurabh applied to Court that the sale should be canceled as he is a minor at the time of sale and he should not be allowed to recover the possession of property from Anil. Can Saurabh plead his minority and succeed?

Response 2 -Yes, Saurabh can plead on the basis of his minority. Sale to a minor is voidable at the option of the minor. The minor may, within a reasonable time after attaining majority, rescind or affirm the contract. Any sale of a property owned by the minor or by his guardian, without the permission of the court is voidable at the option of the minor on becoming a major. The fact that the sale of the property was made for the benefit and meeting the cost of maintenance of the minor, will not make the sale valid

As per the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, any property or share in property owned by a minor, cannot be sold or disposed of by the natural guardian of the minor, without taking permission from the court. Minor is not competent to contract. Any contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio. So if the minor has a guardian under who is competent to contract on his behalf then the said deed will be legal(https://www.kaanoon.com/, 2018)

3. Ajay threatens to shoot Garima if she does not sell her car to him for Rs. 8,000. Garima signs the necessary documents for the sale of the car. Later on, she wants to avoid the contract. Will she succeed? If so, why?

Response 3 - Garima will certainly be entitled to sue Ajay as it's a prima facie case of contract which was made under coercion and is voidable contract. Moreover, the free consent of Garima is sine qua non to form any contract under section 14 of the Contract Act. There are certain essential requirements for a contract which should be valid and enforceable by law. Coercion is contemplated as one of it. Any contract which is made under coercion, use of fear of some physical harm or loss, in this case gun shoot, the contract will per se be voidable according to law in any jurisdiction.

4. Tia writes to Lee, owner of a patent invention for purifying water, "Deliver your machine to purify water at my factory". Lee dispatches the machine in accordance with the order. The machine proved unsuitable for the job. Can Tia sue Lee for breach of condition or warranty?

Response 4 - Yes, Tia can sue Lee for breach of a warranty or condition. Since, the machine that Lee delivered to Tia's factory was not fit for the purpose that Tia had requested it for, then Lee has breached a warranty or condition of the contract. This would entitle Tia to sue Lee for damages.

5. A, by a deed of gift, made over certain property to her daughter, with a direction that the daughter should pay an annuity to A's brother. On the same day the daughter executed a deed in writing in favour of the brother and agreed to pay the annuity. After that the daughter declined to fulfil her promise and the brother sued to recover the amount. The defendant (sister) contended that as there was no consideration from the side of the brother, and that he being the stranger to the consideration had no right to sue. Comment on the situation.

Response 5.There are a few things - First, note that a deed of gift is generally irrevocable. This means that, once the property is transferred, the donor (the daughter's mother) cannot take it back. Second, it's noted that, in most jurisdictions, A deed of gift is not considered a contract. Gift is a transfer of property that has been gratuitously given to any person without any consideration. This condition is an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Under that section it states that any contract or agreement entered into without any consideration is considered to be void. Consideration may move from the promisee or any other person. It can therefore be held that it is not necessary that consideration must move from the promisee himself. Therefore, the brother is entitled to maintain the suit.

In a similar case cited here -Source -https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2021/08/09/case-summary-chinnaya-vs-rammaya/, 2021

"The Madras High Court held that in this agreement between the defendant and plaintiff the consideration has been furnished on behalf of the plaintiff by her sister (respondent's mother). Although the plaintiff was stranger to the consideration since he was a party to the contract he could enforce the promise to the promisor, since, under law, Consideration may be given by the promise or anyone on her behalf - wide section 2(D) of Indian Contract Act,1872.

Thus, consideration furnished by the old lady constitutes sufficient consideration for the plaintiff to sue the defendant on her promise.

Held, the sister was entitled to a decree for payment of the annual sum of money.

In Indian Law, consideration may be given by the promise or any other person. In India, there is a possibility that consideration for the promise may move not from the promise but a third person, who is not a party to the contract, different from the English Law in which the consideration must move from only the promise."

References -

https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2021/08/09/case-summary-chinnaya-vs-rammaya/, 2021

https://www.kaanoon.com/, 2018