7/28/2019 prikshit.docx

1/3

1.Chinnaya v. Venkataramaya

Issue: Whether a party stranger to a contract can sue in the event of breach of contract

Facts: are not clear?

Conclusion: A person, not a party to a contract may sue in case of breach of contract where

the third party is a beneficiary to the contract or is a party to the consideration

2.Chikkam Amiraju v. Vhikam Sechamma

Issue: Whether the threat of committing suicide constitutes coercion under Section 15 of the

Indian Contract Act 1872?

Facts: As the plaintiff threatened to commit suicide if the defendant does not sign a release of

property in favour of his brother, the court held that this was covered under Section 15 of the

Indian Contract Act.

Conclusion:

Threat to commit suicide is covered under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.

3.Henry Wi ll iams and othersv James Bayley

Issue:Whether the respondent had freely consented to the agreement with the appellants.Facts: William Bayley (son of respondent) forged his fathers signature on a number of

promissory notes and their amount leached a considerable sum without the fathers

knowledge. His father (respondent) agreed to give an equitable mortgage (worth 7203 14s)of his property in return for the promissory notes to the appellant.

Holding: The agreement was invalid and voidable because he was continuously disturbed by

the bankers and was not in the state of free agency.

4. Williamv Roffey Bros. & Ni cholls (Contractors) L td.

Facts: The defendants (Roffey Bros) entered into a contract with Shepherd Bush Housing

Association Ltd. To refurbish a block of flats (27 out of the 28 required refurbishing) . The

defendants sub-contracted the plaintiff ( Lester Williams) to carry out carpentry work for

20,000 in instalments. The plaintiff had only completed 8 floors and due to less price

offered b defendant he become financially unwell. The defendants now promised to pay the

plaintiff sum of 10,300 in addition to the 20,000.

Issue: Whether the defendants promise to pay the additional 10,300 at a rate of 575 per flat

is enforceable even though there was no consideration?

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed. Defendant was liable to make the extra payment as

promised. In this case however, the benefits to the defendant arose out of their agreement of

9th April 1986 with the plaintiff (the promisee). There is nothing stated in the facts to suggest

that the promise was given as a result of fraud or duress. Even if the consideration is

7/28/2019 prikshit.docx

2/3

considered as good, it was one that did not move from the promise. the consideration must be

provided by the promise to arise out of his contractual relationship with the promisor.

5. Lewisv Averay

Facts: Plaintiff sold the car to a man called rogue who introduced himself as Richard greenand presented a faulty cheque to the plaintiff for purchasing the car. The arson purchased the

car from the plaintiff and sold it to the Averay (defendant).

Issuedoes a mistake to identity render a contract void?

Conclusion: the Court of Appeals held that the car was delivered under a contract voidable

by reason of the fraud and the contract having not been avoided before the car passed into the

hands of the defendant, he acquired a good title.

6. Boulton v Jones

Facts - P was employed by Brocklehurst, a pipe hose manufacturer, with whom the

defendants had had previous dealings. The plaintiff took over Brocklehurst's business and on

the same day the defendants ordered hose form Brocklehurst. The plaintiff supplied the goods

but the defendants refused to pay on the ground that they intended to contract, not with the

plaintiff, but with Brocklehurst as they wished to enforce a set-off against him.

Issue: Is the defendant liable when the mistake was caused by takeover of business?

Conclusion: The court held that Jones intended to deal with the Brocklehurst and not

Boulton. The plaintiffs knew this but still took the order from Jones.

7. Cundyv. L indsay (Fraud)

Facts - The respondent, Lindsay were manufacturers of linen handkerchiefs. They received

an order letter from a fraudster named Blenkarn who purported to be ' a reputable business

called Blenkiron & Co' in the correspondence.They delivered a large order of handkerchiefs

to the fraudster. Blenkarn then sold these handkerchiefs to the appellant, Cundy. Lindsay then

sued Cundy for recovery of goods upon failure of payment by Blenkarn.

Issue - Whether the respondent is entitled to the recovery of goods?

Conclusion: In the present case the court observed that the respondent never intended toenter into a contract with Blenkarn and hence no property titles could have passed from

Blenkarn to appellant. Since the foundation of contract was on a unilateral mistake, Blenkarn

did not possess any rights to the goods and accordingly could not have passed any rights to

the appellant. The appellant therefore had to return the goods to the respondent.

8. Raffles v. Wichelhaus (Meeting of Minds)

Facts - The plaintiff, Raffles offered to sell cotton to the defendant, Wichelhaus. The cotton

was to be shipped from Bombay to Liverpool, on a ship named Peerless. However there were

two ships of the same party with one ship reaching Liverpool in October and other in

December. Neither party knew about the existence of the other ship and therefore when the

cotton reached Liverpool in December defendant refused to accept delivery as he had

7/28/2019 prikshit.docx

3/3

expected delivery by the ship coming in October. The refusal of defendant to accept delivery

of goods lead to the current lawsuit.

Issue - Whether there was meeting of minds between the two contracting parties?

Conclusion - In the present case each party had different terms in mind with respect todelivery of good and hence there was no meeting of mind making the contract void.

9. Leaf v International Galleries (Misrepresentation)

Facts- Plaintiff, Earnest Louis went to the company Salisbury cathedral by John Constable to

buy one of his paintings. He thought and was also told that its a constable but when after 5

years he tried to auction it he was told it was not john constables painting.

Issue: whether the defendant is liable to pay the rescission to the plaintiff for innocent

misrepresentation or mistake even after 5 years?

Conclusion: The above case states that the defendant is not liable to refund him his money

back as he approached the court after 5 long years according to the Sale of Goods Act.

10. Oscarv Chess Wi l li ams(Misrepresentation)

Facts: The defendant William sold a car to Oscar for 290, he mentioned it as a 1948 model

but he misrepresented the model as 1939 model worth 175. Later, Oscar sued William for

the difference in trade value of the car.

Issue: whether the selling of 1939 model as 1948 model would be construed as a term of a

contract or a mere misrepresentation?

Analysis: According to denning, a reasonable person in dealing with a car dealer would not

have thought that he would sell him the wrong model thus, the statement made by William

should be thought of as a mere representation and in this case no remedy would be available

to the plaintiff.

Conclusion: Hence, from the above stated facts both the parties are at fault.