Class Notes - 22nd October, Tuesday, 2024

#

Today’s class notes cover the lectures held on Tuesday, 22nd October 2024, for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College. The sessions focused on Contracts - 1, Law of Torts, and Family Law - 1. Due to the absence of the Constitutional Law faculty, the class for Constitutional Law did not take place. Instead, the Contracts - 1 lecture was extended to two periods, allowing for an in-depth discussion on the topics of Standing Offers, communication of special terms, and acceptance of an offer.

Contracts - 1

#

Faculty Name: Dr. Radha Kumari
Unit: 1 - Definition and Essentials of a Valid Contract

Today’s session delved into the concept of standing offers and how they differ from regular offers, particularly in the context of tenders. Additionally, we explored the legal principles surrounding the communication of special terms in a contract and the implications of acceptance. Read previous notes for clarification of other points.

Discussion on Standing Offer - Continuing Offer:

#

• Nature: A standing offer, also known as a continuing offer, is one that remains open for acceptance over a certain period. It is commonly seen in the context of tenders and quotations, where a party agrees to supply goods or services as required by the other party.
• Tenders: A company might invite tenders for the supply of materials, and the party providing a tender remains bound by the offer until the acceptance or revocation.

Communication of Special Terms in a Proposal:

#

• Principle: For any special terms in a contract to be enforceable, they must be communicated to the offeree either before or at the time of forming the contract. If communicated after the formation, they are not binding.
• Case: Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd (1949): A couple went to a hotel, paid the amount at the reception, booked a room, and after checking in, they found a notice in the room limiting the hotel’s liability in case of lost luggage. The court ruled that the terms on the notice were not binding because they were communicated after the contract had been formed.
• Case: Henderson v. Stevenson (1875): A ticket for a train journey included a term exempting the railway from liability, printed on the back. Since the passenger was not made aware of this term, the court held that it was not enforceable. The ticket must contain something on the front that draws the attention of the purchaser to read the back. Terms such as “PTO” which stands for Please turn over, or “See back” are required to be mentioned on the front.
• Case: Parker v. S.E. Railway Co. (1877): Parker deposited a bag in a railway cloakroom and received a ticket with terms limiting liability on the back. He claimed compensation for the loss of his bag, arguing he did not see the terms. The court held that if reasonable notice of the terms is given, the company can limit liability. In this case, the front of the ticket had something to the tune of “PTO” or “See back” etc.

Understanding Acceptance:

#

• Acceptance: Acceptance must be absolute and unconditional. It must adhere to the mode prescribed (if any) and must be communicated to the offeror.
  • Section 2(b) defines acceptance as:
    “When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted.” An offer, when accepted, becomes a promise. Acceptance can be express or implied, but when it is implied, there must be some overt act from the offeree to signify acceptance.

Who Can Accept?

#

• Specific Offer: Only the person to whom the offer is directed can accept it.

  • Case: Boulton v. Jones: In this case, Jones had placed an order with a business run by a specific individual, but the business was sold to Boulton without Jones’s knowledge. Boulton fulfilled the order, but Jones refused to pay, arguing that he intended to contract only with the previous owner. The court sided with Jones, emphasizing that an offer made to a specific person cannot be accepted by anyone else, as the identity of the person mattered in this agreement.

• General Offer: A general offer made to the world at large can be accepted by any person who fulfills its conditions.

  • Case: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893): This case involved a company that advertised a £100 reward for anyone who used their product as directed and still contracted influenza. Mrs. Carlill followed the instructions, became ill, and claimed the reward. The company argued that no contract was formed. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill, stating that the advertisement constituted a unilateral offer, and acceptance occurred when she performed the conditions stated. This case is a leading example of how a general offer can be accepted through performance.

Legal Rules Regarding Acceptance:

#

1. Absolute and Unqualified: Acceptance must be unconditional and in accordance with the mode prescribed. It should be communicated to the offeror.
2. Communication of Acceptance: Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror to be valid.
   • Case: Felthouse v. Bindley (1862): This case involved a situation where an uncle discussed buying a horse from his nephew(a dealer in horses). He wrote to his nephew stating that he will assume the horse (a specific one) would be his at a price. The nephew told his staff, Bindley to not sell the said horse. However, he failed to write back to his uncle stating anything. Bindley, the staff, inadvertently sold the horse. The uncle sued Bindley for wrongfully interefering in his property. The court held that silence does not constitute acceptance, and no contract existed because there was no explicit communication of acceptance to the offeror.

Law of Torts

#

Faculty Name: Dr. Pavani
Unit: 1 - Nature of Law of Torts

Today’s class built upon the essential elements of a tort and the criteria required for a wrongful act or omission to qualify as a tort.

Essential Elements of a Tort:

#

• Requirements: To constitute a tort, three conditions must be met:
  • There must be an act or omission by the defendant.
  • This act or omission must result in legal damage (injuria sine damno).
  • The wrongful act must give rise to a legal remedy in the form of damages.
• Case: Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor (1922): A child died after consuming poisonous berries in a park maintained by the Glasgow Corporation. The court held that the park authorities were liable as the presence of the bushes constituted an attractive nuisance and were required to take care of such issues beforehand.

Legal Damage:

#

• Injuria Sine Damno: Legal injury without actual damage. A person’s legal right has been violated even if no monetary loss has occurred.

  • Case: Ashby v. White: A voter was prevented from voting by a returning officer. Although this did not affect the election result, the court held that the right to vote had been violated, and awarded exemplary damages as compensation.
  • Case: Bhim Singh v. State of J&K: Bhim Singh, an MLA, was illegally detained by the police, preventing him from attending a legislative assembly session. The Supreme Court awarded exemplary damages as compensation, emphasizing that illegal detention is a violation of personal liberty.

• Damnum Sine Injuria: Damage without a legal injury. Economic loss or other harm alone is not sufficient for a tort claim unless a legal right is violated.

  • Case: Gloucester Grammar School(1410): A teacher opened a new school, causing financial loss to an existing school. The court ruled that economic competition does not constitute a legal injury.
  • Case: Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal(1975): The Committee demolished the plaintiff’s 16 unauthorised shops constructed without permission. The court ruled that since the demolition was in accordance with the UP Municipal Act, it was legal, no compensation was owed.

Family Law - 1

#

Faculty Name: Dr. Sriveni
Unit: 2 - Marriage

Today’s discussion centered around customs in marriage under Hindu law, focusing on the recognition of customary practices and how they influence the validity of marriages.

Customary Ceremonies and Rites:

#

• Nature: Customary ceremonies can validate a marriage if they are recognized customs within a particular community.

• Case: Dr A.N. Mukerji v. State(1968): In the case of Dr. A.N. Mukerji vs. State, Smt. Harbans Kaur accused Dr. Mukerji of deceiving her into believing they were married through mock rituals, leading to cohabitation and financial transactions. The court acquitted him of charges under Section 493 IPC (deceitful marriage) and Section 376 IPC (rape), as it found Kaur did not genuinely believe in the marriage. Initially convicted under Section 417 IPC (cheating), this was overturned on appeal due to insufficient evidence of deception. The court emphasized the difference between consensual extramarital relations and legal deception, recommending professional review of Mukerji’s conduct.

• Case: Bhauro Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra: The Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr (1965) ruled that a valid marriage under Section 494 IPC (bigamy) requires the marriage to be “solemnized” with essential ceremonies, like Saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire). The term “solemnized” means conducting a marriage with proper rites. Since these rites were not performed in the appellant’s second marriage, it was deemed invalid, and the charges of bigamy were dismissed. The court also noted that customary modifications must be proven with evidence, which was lacking in this case, thus overturning the previous conviction.

• Case: Devianachhi v. Chidambara Chettiar: The court ruled that the marriage was invalid. The parties, belonging to an anti-purohit organization, exchanged garlands and declared themselves married. However, this act alone was not sufficient to constitute a valid marriage under Hindu law, which typically requires specific rituals or customs to be followed.

• Case: Ramchandra v. Majnu: The court dismissed the claim of marriage as invalid. The parties claimed to have entered into a Gandharva marriage, a form of marriage recognized in ancient Hindu texts. However, they failed to prove that this form of marriage was still a recognized custom in their community. In Hindu law, customs must be consistently practiced and recognized by the community to be legally valid.

• Case: Shri Nitin s/o Omprakash v. Smt Rekha v/o Nitin Agarwal: The court held that the marriage was not valid. The man had applied sindoor (vermilion) on the woman’s forehead and they began living together as husband and wife. However, this act alone was deemed insufficient to constitute a valid marriage under Hindu law, which typically requires more formal ceremonies or rituals.

• Case: Sumit Suhash Agarwal v. Kamlesh Lalyita Prasad Gupta (2018): The court ruled that this was a valid marriage. The couple performed a simplified version of the sapta padi (seven steps) ritual using incense sticks. This was considered a sufficient adherence to Hindu marriage customs, demonstrating the court’s flexibility in interpreting traditional rituals in modern contexts.

• Case: S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami: The court held that the marriage was valid. Although the traditional saptapadi ritual was not performed, the couple successfully proved that they had followed other customs recognized in their community. This case highlights the importance of community-specific customs in determining the validity of a Hindu marriage.

Shastric Ceremonies:

#

• Some commonly recognized shastric ceremonies include:
  • Kanya Dana: The giving away of the bride by her family.
  • Pani Grahana: Ritual of taking the bride’s hand.
  • Vivaha Homa: Offering oblations to the fire.
  • Sapta Padi: The seven steps taken together by the couple, signifying their union.

Other Concepts:

#

• Anuloma and Pratiloma: Concepts relating to inter-varna marriages.
  • Anuloma: Marriage of a higher caste male with a lower caste female—valid in some regions.
  • Pratiloma: Marriage of a higher caste female with a lower caste male—considered invalid traditionally.
• Exogamy and Endogamy: Practices of marrying outside or within a community or family.

Note: The Constitutional Law faculty was absent today. The classes for Contracts, Law of Torts, and Family Law proceeded as usual.