Section 142 of the Indian Contracts Act states that Guarantee obtained by misrepresentation, invalid- Any guarantee which has been obtained by means of misrepresentation made by the creditor, or with his knowledge and assent, concerning a material part of the transaction, is invalid. Section 143 of the Indian Contracts Act states that Guarantee obtained by concealment invalid- Any guarantee which the creditor has obtained by means of keeping silence as to a material circumstances, is invalid. Under English law it is settled that the contract of suretyship is one in which there is no universal obligation to make disclosure’, it is not like a contract of insurance, liable to be avoided by the mere non-disclosure of any material fact whatever, still the surety is entitled to know so much as will tell him what is the transaction for which he is making himself answerable, and he will be discharged if there is either active misrepresentation of the matter by the creditor, or silence amounting in the circumstances to misrepresentation. Ordinary contracts of guarantee are not amongst those requiring uberrima fides on the part of the creditor towards the surety. But a contract of guarantee, like any other contract, is liable to be avoided if included by material misrepresentation of an existing fact, even if made innocently. Misrepresentation may consist of direct assertion of a fact which is not a fact, or may consist of statement by the creditor which will tell only such part of the truth, as is likely mislead, or a statement made by the creditor believing it to be true, but later discovered to be untrue, or later becoming untrue to his knowledge. A guarantee caused by the misrepresentation may be invalid if the misrepresentation has bee... ... middle of paper ... ...incipal, disclosed or undisclosed, but nevertheless poses as an agent. He cannot demand performance from the third party if he has been acting, in reality, on his own account, and not as agent. This section is attracted when there is no named principal. If a person professing to act as an agent for an undisclosed principal enters into a contract with another, and there is no undisclosed principal in fact, the present section applies, and he cannot sue on the contract. Here disputes are between two persons, one of whom is a falsely professed agent of third party, it does not apply where the dispute is between the principal and his agent. This section does not render the contract void. It only provides that the alleged agent cannot require its performance. Therefore, being enforceable at the instance of one of the parties, and not the other, it is a voidable contract.
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
The contract was created to be lawful, not intentional to be illegal b. Knowingly and willfully acts, a required element of AKS, was not the basis of the initial of the contract c. Smith Kline did not solicit remuneration from the partners Cons that support that Hanlester should be viewed as
There were also no terms or conditions to perform, nor a time or event of completion of performance. “USLegal.com helped further explain the requirements of a legally enforceable contract by providing the following elements that must be adhered to, in order for a contract to be legally binding: an offer; 1. an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds, 2. a promise to perform, 3. a valuable consideration, 4.
However, the fourth element, which is "legal object," may not be satisfied between Sam and the chain store because there was nothing in writing, nothing was “drawn.” An oral promise would make the contract invalid if the completion of that promise will take more than a year from the date of agreement. However, if the chain store has written proof confirming Sam 's promise, for example, advertisements, invoices that the store only prepares in the regular course of business after an oral promise for a product delivery has been made, a court may consider Sam 's oral promise legally binding. Then it would be considered a "primary obligation" (since there was a debt incurred in anticipation of the sale of his invention at their stores). In that event, the contract does not need to be in writing to be enforced since primary obligations are not within the statute of frauds. So if the chain store does not get their 1000
Through the use of statistics, expert testimony, appeals to emotions, and a few comparisons, Scurlock tries to convey his message saying that because the lending industry’s main concern is maximizing profits, they have made it impossible to not have a credit card and avoid being taken advantage of. He accomplishes his goal of clearly relaying his argument to the audience with the high amount of credible support he provides.
Promissory Estoppel in NY states that in the absent of a written contract, a promise or an implied agreement is sufficient to hold the company responsible.
The appellants further specified that these principles did not apply as “no situation existed that the bank” would not “naturally expect”. In addition, the bank was also unaware of any misrepresentation or impropriety the respondents had suffered and therefore the bank viewed the guarantee as legally valid. 14
Promissory estoppel is when " one person might rely on a promise made by another even though the promise and the relevant circumstances are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that a contract exists" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 333).
agrees to lend the money on the basis that if the 3,000 ducats are not
It is commonly accepted that an estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a person from negating or claiming a fact due to that person’s prior conduct. The doctrine of estoppel has been applied for years and different forms of estoppel have been established. For the purpose of this essay, I will predominantly concentrate on promissory estoppel in relation to the law of contracts. This essay will be approached by discussing the issues of pre-contractual liability, consideration, reliance and the doctrine as a cause of action or defence and a slight comparison of the standpoints that various jurisdictions hold towards these issues. These arguments would conclude the uncertainty of the doctrine and thus, the difficulty and issues that would be faced with the codification of the estoppel.
In his article he states that “a contract implies mutually, an agreement or at least the outward appearance of an agr...
There are several types of false statement. One of them is a deliberate lie, which goes under the Tort of Deceit. Another one is negligent misstatement, which is basically the statement made carelessly or without reasonable background and is included into the Law of Tort.
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.
Also, in instances where the issuer fails to pay the principal amount back to the bond holder,