Leb Cases New 2009

8/2/2019 Leb Cases New 2009

1/18

CARLILL VS. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALLCOMPANY

FACTS OF THE CASE:THE PLAINTIFF BOUGHT A MEDICAL

PREPARATION CALLED CARBOLIC SMOKE

BALL AND USED IT AS DIRECTED BY THEDEFENDANTS THREE TIMES A DAY, FROM

NOVEMBER 20, 1891 TO JANUARY 17, 1892.

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT-1872


2/18

The plaintiff bought carbolic smoke ball inreference to the advertisement by the defendantsthat they would pay 100 to any person who

contracted influenza after using the smoke ball inthe prescribed manner and for a specified period.The defendants to show their sincerity haddeposited 1000 with the Alliance Bank.The plaintiffs sued defendants for the 100

ISSUES OF LAW:

This case is an instance of general offer. The

general offer is that offer which is sent to allpeople (or the world at large) and not to anyspecific party. This offer may be accepted by anyperson who fulfills the necessary conditions.


3/18

COURTS OBSERVATIONS

According to the first Judge Hawkins J, the offer wasnot made in favour of any particular person. But itturns into an acceptance as soon as a personperforms the condition. So, when the offer isaccepted it is necessary to perform all the promises.

According to the second judge, Justice Bowen, LJI, itwas an offer only made to the public. Who acceptsthis offer enters into a contract. Thus Mrs. Carlill hasaccepted the offer by performing the condition.

According to the third Judge, A. L. Smith, L. J. it was anoffer intended to be acted upon, and, when it wasacted upon by performing the conditions, a promiseto pay was constituted.


4/18

MOHORI BIBEE vs. DHARMADAS GHOSE

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this case a minor executed a mortgage forRs20000 and received Rs8000 from the

mortgagee. He sued for setting aside themortgage. The mortgagee wanted refund ofthe sum which he had actually paid that isRs8000.


5/18

COURTS OBSERVATION:

An agreement not enforceable by law is said tobe void. Here, the contract has been done

with a minor and the law says that Allagreements are contracts if they are madeby the free consent of parties competent tocontract, for a lawful consideration, and witha lawful object, and are not hereby expresslydeclared to be void.


6/18

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

A loads his broken machine on B s vehiclewho is a transporter. However, A at the timeof loading did not state that the machinerywas essential for running his business. For

some reasons breach of contract occurs onpart of B in delivering the machine which Baccepts. Explain by giving reasons :

a. Whether A can file suit for damages against

B?b. Identify the statutory provision and state the

rule under Indian Contract Act, forcompensating the losses or damages.

Hadley Vs. Baxendale


7/18

STRANGER TO CONTRACT-FINDER OF LOST

GOODS

A finds a gold ornament on the road. He handsit over to the police department, asking themto restore it to the true owner. In spite of

giving advertisements, the police are unableto find the true owner. A claims the goldornament from the police. However, the

police refuse to hand over the ornament to A.Advise A.


8/18

CONTRACT OF GUARANTEE

A Ltd appointed X as Chief Cashier based on thegood character certificate given by S who alsoextended and stood as surety for X. . After onemonth of appointment, X misappropriated cash

of Rs.50000/- and the company warned X andno information was given to S. After 3 months, Xforged Companys cheque and encashedRs.100000/-. The company filed a criminal case

on X and he was not traceable. The companycalled S to fulfill the surety performance. WhenS declined, a suit was filed invoking his suretygiven on behalf of X. Decide.


9/18

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT-BREACH OF CONTRACT

XYZ Ltd agreed to supply 100000 bags ofcement to Quality Builders Limited at a predetermined agreed rate of Rs.200/- per bag.After supply of 30000 bags, ChennaiCements Ltd expressed its difficulty to supply@ Rs.200/- as the cost of production itselfwas Rs.250/- per bag. The Builder filed a

case for breach of agreement against thesupplier for specific performance. Decide


10/18

CASE ON BANK GUARANTEEBangalore Municipal Corporation wants to construct a huge flyover

for the improvement of the traffic situation in the city. The cost ofthe flyover is estimated to be Rs. 500 crore. Bangalore MunicipalCorporation (BMC) calls for tenders. XYZ Ltd. submits its tenderand is selected. Since the amount involved is huge, BMCadvances an amount of 200 crore to XYZ Ltd.

The questions that arise in this scenario are as follows:

What assurance does BMC have that XYZ Ltd. will carry out theirobligations under the contract?

What assurance does BMC have that XYZ Ltd. will notmisappropriate the amount?

What assurance does BMC have that XYZ Ltd will use the amount

given for the project?What assurance does BMC have that the amount sanctioned will not

be 'held up' in disputes?


11/18

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS

Mr. A an Indian importer and Mr. B an exporter enter into acontract for the supply of goods. 'A' gives a letter of credit to 'B'.The terms of the letter of credit guarantee A's creditworthinessand his due compliance with the terms of the contract. 'A' defaultsin his commitments. 'B' makes an attempt to en cash the letter ofcredit. 'A' files a suit, seeking an injunction restraining B frominvoking the letter of credit. The injunction is granted. Now 'B', inorder to obtain the amount for the goods supplied, files a suit inthe civil court with the possibility that it may take up to ten years,which excludes the time for appeal.

This scenario too gives rise to a number of questions which areas follows:

Should 'A' wait for an inordinately long time to get what is due tohim?Should not this burden be on Party 'A'?Can an injunction of this nature be allowed to affect international

trade and commerce intermittently


12/18

COMPANY LAW

Jubilee Cotton Mills Ltd vs. LewisOn 6th Jan,Documents were submitted for registration, on 8th Jan,

Registrar issued COI dated 6th Jan. Some shares were allotted toLewis before COI.

Whether the allotment of shares issued to Lewis before COI is validor not ?

Judgment :

Derry vs. PeekA company has the right to use steam in it tramways , but fail to do

so since the directors refuse to give consent for the same.

Sir Henry Peek subscribed on the faith of the prospectus.Whether directors are liable for misstatement under general law.Judgment :


13/18

COMPANY LAW

Mr.A and Mr.B promoted a Private Limited Co.called Excel software P. Ltd at Bangalore.They, as the only members, also named

themselves as 1st

Directors and commencedbusiness. Mr.A, who is also the MD used totravel on business thro the month. So hewanted to bring Mr.M, his cousin as aDirector to give him substantial powers in thebusiness but B was not willing. Can M beinducted into the board forcibly?


14/18

COMPANY LAW

A cannot forcibly bring M into BOD unless:

He serves a notice of his intention to othermember 7 days before the meeting

B is agreeing that M can be an additional director (such that extensive powers of co are not passedon but acts for only A)

The Co. is based on the mutual respect and trustof the 2 directors. If they do not agree on anissue, the decision has to be dropped oralternate proposal be considered


15/18

CASE LAWS

National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd Vs.M/s Flow more Pvt Ltd

Bajaj Auto Ltd an VijayaTraders

State Bank of India Vs. M/s Simco Engg WorksSolomon Vs. Solmon & Co.Ltd

TISCO Vs. State of Bihar


16/18


17/18


18/18

Leb Cases New 2009

Documents

Transcript of Leb Cases New 2009