Write Down Void Agreements Prescribed In Contract Act 1872

2021 October 17

3. Fraud (Section 17): “Fraud” means and includes any act or obfuscation of material facts or false statements knowingly undertaken by or with its agent or agent with the intent to deceive another party of its agent or persuade it to enter into the Agreement. Mere silence is not fraud. a Contracting Party is not obliged to disclose everything and is not obliged to disclose everything from the other Party. There are two exceptions where even simple silence can be fraud, one is where there is a duty to speak, and then silence is fraud. or if silence in itself is synonymous with language, that silence is a fraud. In the law, the relationship that exists when one person or party (the client) entrusts another (the agent) with acting for him, that is, .B to do his work, to sell his property, to manage his business. The law of the agency thus governs the legal relationship in which the entrepreneur must deal with a third party on behalf of the client. The competent representative has the legal capacity vis-à-vis the third party to act on behalf of this client. Therefore, the process of concluding a contract by an agent involves a double relationship. Agency law deals on the one hand with the external economic business relationships of an economic entity and the powers of the various representatives to influence the legal status of the client. On the other hand, it also regulates the domestic policy relationship between the client and the authorized representative and thus interferes with certain obligations of the representative (diligence, accounting, good faith, etc.). Section 11 of the Indian Contracts Act states that any person is capable of contracting, provided that: These are commercial agreements in which the manufacturer enters into an agreement with the consumer that he or she would only purchase items for a certain period of time.

However, if the manufacturer produces an excess quantity, he is allowed to sell it to anyone. “As long as the negative provision is nothing more than an ordinary incident or triviality of the positive alliance, there is virtually nothing offensive about Article 27. However, the court cannot approve the contract, in particular if the buyer intends to monopolize or monopolize the goods in order to resell them at its own price, or if it binds the seller for an unreasonable period. [11] This was published in Sheikh Kallu vs Ramsaran Bhagat. 7. Contract 2(h): A legally enforceable agreement is a contract. The basis for delegitimizing a trade restriction agreement lies in the historical context of the dispute between free markets and the possibility of agreements. Guaranteeing freedom of agreement would be tantamount to legitimising agreements restricting trade, which would lead the parties to agree to control competition. According to the common law, this position is taken from Nordenfelt v.

Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd. In this case, Thorsten Nordenfelt was a firearms manufacturer in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business to an organization that at that time moved the company to Maxim Nordenfelt. Then Thorsten agreed with Maxim that he would not participate in the assembly of the weapons for a period of 25 years, except for what he produces for the benefit of the organization. .

Comments are closed for this entry.