CLAT 2022 || New Pattern Legal Reasoning Quiz || 10.02.2022

Direction: Study the following information and answer the questions that follow:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) specifically declares certain kinds of agreements to be void agreements. The different kinds of agreements which the ICA specifically declares to be void can be understood as follows:

1) Agreement without consideration – Each party entering into an agreement promises to do something for the other in return for something being done for them. This is called “consideration” under contract law. The said general rule is subject to certain exceptions. For instance, a gift deed does not involve consideration as the property is transferred under a gift deed only out of love and affection.

2) Agreement having unlawful consideration – Each agreement, in order to be valid, must have some consideration, the consideration must also be lawful and not illegal.

3) Agreement in restraint of marriage – Section 26 of the ICA states that an agreement in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void. This restriction does not apply to a person who is minor in age since minors are generally barred from marrying by the personal law governing them.

4) Agreement in restraint of trade – Section 27 of the ICA states that each agreement which restrains a party from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to the extent of imposing such restriction.

5) Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings – Section 28 of the ICA states that an agreement which absolutely prohibits a party from enforcing his/her legal right/rights through legal proceedings or imposes a time limit for enforcing such legal rights through legal proceedings is void.

6) Agreement which is uncertain – Section 29 of the ICA states that agreements whose meaning is not certain and also not capable of being made certain are void.

7) Agreements by way of wager – Section 30 of the ICA states that an agreement by way of the wager is void. A wager essentially means a bet between two or more persons and an agreement based on a bet is void.

8) Agreement to do an impossible act – Section 56 of the ICA states that an agreement involving the doing of an impossible act by either party is void.

[Extracted with edits from: Legal Reasoning: Void Agreements for CLAT 2020, https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/legal-aptitude-void-agreements-for-clat-2020/ ]

Direction: Study the following information and answer the questions that follow:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) specifically declares certain kinds of agreements to be void agreements. The different kinds of agreements which the ICA specifically declares to be void can be understood as follows:

1) Agreement without consideration – Each party entering into an agreement promises to do something for the other in return for something being done for them. This is called “consideration” under contract law. The said general rule is subject to certain exceptions. For instance, a gift deed does not involve consideration as the property is transferred under a gift deed only out of love and affection.

2) Agreement having unlawful consideration – Each agreement, in order to be valid, must have some consideration, the consideration must also be lawful and not illegal.

3) Agreement in restraint of marriage – Section 26 of the ICA states that an agreement in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void. This restriction does not apply to a person who is minor in age since minors are generally barred from marrying by the personal law governing them.

4) Agreement in restraint of trade – Section 27 of the ICA states that each agreement which restrains a party from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to the extent of imposing such restriction.

5) Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings – Section 28 of the ICA states that an agreement which absolutely prohibits a party from enforcing his/her legal right/rights through legal proceedings or imposes a time limit for enforcing such legal rights through legal proceedings is void.

6) Agreement which is uncertain – Section 29 of the ICA states that agreements whose meaning is not certain and also not capable of being made certain are void.

7) Agreements by way of wager – Section 30 of the ICA states that an agreement by way of the wager is void. A wager essentially means a bet between two or more persons and an agreement based on a bet is void.

8) Agreement to do an impossible act – Section 56 of the ICA states that an agreement involving the doing of an impossible act by either party is void.

[Extracted with edits from: Legal Reasoning: Void Agreements for CLAT 2020, https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/legal-aptitude-void-agreements-for-clat-2020/ ]

Direction: Study the following information and answer the questions that follow:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) specifically declares certain kinds of agreements to be void agreements. The different kinds of agreements which the ICA specifically declares to be void can be understood as follows:

1) Agreement without consideration – Each party entering into an agreement promises to do something for the other in return for something being done for them. This is called “consideration” under contract law. The said general rule is subject to certain exceptions. For instance, a gift deed does not involve consideration as the property is transferred under a gift deed only out of love and affection.

2) Agreement having unlawful consideration – Each agreement, in order to be valid, must have some consideration, the consideration must also be lawful and not illegal.

3) Agreement in restraint of marriage – Section 26 of the ICA states that an agreement in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void. This restriction does not apply to a person who is minor in age since minors are generally barred from marrying by the personal law governing them.

4) Agreement in restraint of trade – Section 27 of the ICA states that each agreement which restrains a party from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to the extent of imposing such restriction.

5) Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings – Section 28 of the ICA states that an agreement which absolutely prohibits a party from enforcing his/her legal right/rights through legal proceedings or imposes a time limit for enforcing such legal rights through legal proceedings is void.

6) Agreement which is uncertain – Section 29 of the ICA states that agreements whose meaning is not certain and also not capable of being made certain are void.

7) Agreements by way of wager – Section 30 of the ICA states that an agreement by way of the wager is void. A wager essentially means a bet between two or more persons and an agreement based on a bet is void.

8) Agreement to do an impossible act – Section 56 of the ICA states that an agreement involving the doing of an impossible act by either party is void.

[Extracted with edits from: Legal Reasoning: Void Agreements for CLAT 2020, https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/legal-aptitude-void-agreements-for-clat-2020/ ]

Direction: Study the following information and answer the questions that follow:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) specifically declares certain kinds of agreements to be void agreements. The different kinds of agreements which the ICA specifically declares to be void can be understood as follows:

1) Agreement without consideration – Each party entering into an agreement promises to do something for the other in return for something being done for them. This is called “consideration” under contract law. The said general rule is subject to certain exceptions. For instance, a gift deed does not involve consideration as the property is transferred under a gift deed only out of love and affection.

2) Agreement having unlawful consideration – Each agreement, in order to be valid, must have some consideration, the consideration must also be lawful and not illegal.

3) Agreement in restraint of marriage – Section 26 of the ICA states that an agreement in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void. This restriction does not apply to a person who is minor in age since minors are generally barred from marrying by the personal law governing them.

4) Agreement in restraint of trade – Section 27 of the ICA states that each agreement which restrains a party from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to the extent of imposing such restriction.

5) Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings – Section 28 of the ICA states that an agreement which absolutely prohibits a party from enforcing his/her legal right/rights through legal proceedings or imposes a time limit for enforcing such legal rights through legal proceedings is void.

6) Agreement which is uncertain – Section 29 of the ICA states that agreements whose meaning is not certain and also not capable of being made certain are void.

7) Agreements by way of wager – Section 30 of the ICA states that an agreement by way of the wager is void. A wager essentially means a bet between two or more persons and an agreement based on a bet is void.

8) Agreement to do an impossible act – Section 56 of the ICA states that an agreement involving the doing of an impossible act by either party is void.

[Extracted with edits from: Legal Reasoning: Void Agreements for CLAT 2020, https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/legal-aptitude-void-agreements-for-clat-2020/ ]

Direction: Study the following information and answer the questions that follow:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) specifically declares certain kinds of agreements to be void agreements. The different kinds of agreements which the ICA specifically declares to be void can be understood as follows:

1) Agreement without consideration – Each party entering into an agreement promises to do something for the other in return for something being done for them. This is called “consideration” under contract law. The said general rule is subject to certain exceptions. For instance, a gift deed does not involve consideration as the property is transferred under a gift deed only out of love and affection.

2) Agreement having unlawful consideration – Each agreement, in order to be valid, must have some consideration, the consideration must also be lawful and not illegal.

3) Agreement in restraint of marriage – Section 26 of the ICA states that an agreement in restraint of the marriage of any person, other than a minor, is void. This restriction does not apply to a person who is minor in age since minors are generally barred from marrying by the personal law governing them.

4) Agreement in restraint of trade – Section 27 of the ICA states that each agreement which restrains a party from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to the extent of imposing such restriction.

5) Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings – Section 28 of the ICA states that an agreement which absolutely prohibits a party from enforcing his/her legal right/rights through legal proceedings or imposes a time limit for enforcing such legal rights through legal proceedings is void.

6) Agreement which is uncertain – Section 29 of the ICA states that agreements whose meaning is not certain and also not capable of being made certain are void.

7) Agreements by way of wager – Section 30 of the ICA states that an agreement by way of the wager is void. A wager essentially means a bet between two or more persons and an agreement based on a bet is void.

8) Agreement to do an impossible act – Section 56 of the ICA states that an agreement involving the doing of an impossible act by either party is void.

[Extracted with edits from: Legal Reasoning: Void Agreements for CLAT 2020, https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/legal-aptitude-void-agreements-for-clat-2020/ ]

Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the given questions:

Wagering Agreement is not defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1860. Cotton, L.J. in Thacker v. Hardy said: “The essence of wagering and gaming is that one party is to win and other is to fall upon an upcoming event which at the time of the contract is of an uncertain nature, i.e., that if the future event sets out one way A will lose, but if it turns out another way, he will win.”The most essential element of a wagering agreement is the uncertainty of the future event. The parties must not be familiar with the result of the uncertain event. The requirement herein is that the parties must not have any idea about the result even if the event has been held in the past. This means the future event is not essential rather the parties must not be aware of the result. In the case of Jethmal Madanlal Jokotia v. Nevatia & Co, The parties must not be aware of the happening of the event or the, even if the event has happened in the past. The wager is based on chance. And therefore both parties must get an equal chance of winning and mutual opportunity must be given to both the parties to gain or lose. Agreements in which the results are determined towards one party then it is not a wagering agreement. There must be two outcomes of the event then only a fair chance will be given to the parties. If winning or losing is completely based on skill there is no wager.

In Baba sahib V. In this case, it was held that an agreement cannot be looked upon as a wagering agreement if it lacks the desire of winning or losing. The essence of the wager is that both parties must stand to win or lose to the result of an uncertain event. The parties to the agreement must only be focused on the outcome on which they have staked their money. The parties must not have any other interest in the event other than winning or losing. So the sole purpose must be betting. An insurable interest in the contract will not be called a wagering contract. There must be the absence of any kind of consideration from the parties to make it a wagering agreement. Neither of the party shall have any control over the happening of the event in one way or any other. If one of the parties gets the hold of the event this will hamper the essential element of water that is CHANCE. BIRDWOOD J in the case Dayabhai Tribhovandas v Lakshmichand[5] held that if the result in the hands of one party then there is no wagering agreement. Due to this essential of wagering agreement, skill-based events are exempted from the wagering agreement. It is to be noted that any agreement which is collateral to a wagering agreement is valid only if that itself is not a wagering agreement.

[Excerpt from Indian Legal Solution dated October 30, 2020

Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the given questions:

Wagering Agreement is not defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1860. Cotton, L.J. in Thacker v. Hardy said: “The essence of wagering and gaming is that one party is to win and other is to fall upon an upcoming event which at the time of the contract is of an uncertain nature, i.e., that if the future event sets out one way A will lose, but if it turns out another way, he will win.”The most essential element of a wagering agreement is the uncertainty of the future event. The parties must not be familiar with the result of the uncertain event. The requirement herein is that the parties must not have any idea about the result even if the event has been held in the past. This means the future event is not essential rather the parties must not be aware of the result. In the case of Jethmal Madanlal Jokotia v. Nevatia & Co, The parties must not be aware of the happening of the event or the, even if the event has happened in the past. The wager is based on chance. And therefore both parties must get an equal chance of winning and mutual opportunity must be given to both the parties to gain or lose. Agreements in which the results are determined towards one party then it is not a wagering agreement. There must be two outcomes of the event then only a fair chance will be given to the parties. If winning or losing is completely based on skill there is no wager.

In Baba sahib V. In this case, it was held that an agreement cannot be looked upon as a wagering agreement if it lacks the desire of winning or losing. The essence of the wager is that both parties must stand to win or lose to the result of an uncertain event. The parties to the agreement must only be focused on the outcome on which they have staked their money. The parties must not have any other interest in the event other than winning or losing. So the sole purpose must be betting. An insurable interest in the contract will not be called a wagering contract. There must be the absence of any kind of consideration from the parties to make it a wagering agreement. Neither of the party shall have any control over the happening of the event in one way or any other. If one of the parties gets the hold of the event this will hamper the essential element of water that is CHANCE. BIRDWOOD J in the case Dayabhai Tribhovandas v Lakshmichand[5] held that if the result in the hands of one party then there is no wagering agreement. Due to this essential of wagering agreement, skill-based events are exempted from the wagering agreement. It is to be noted that any agreement which is collateral to a wagering agreement is valid only if that itself is not a wagering agreement.

[Excerpt from Indian Legal Solution dated October 30, 2020

Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the given questions:

Wagering Agreement is not defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1860. Cotton, L.J. in Thacker v. Hardy said: “The essence of wagering and gaming is that one party is to win and other is to fall upon an upcoming event which at the time of the contract is of an uncertain nature, i.e., that if the future event sets out one way A will lose, but if it turns out another way, he will win.”The most essential element of a wagering agreement is the uncertainty of the future event. The parties must not be familiar with the result of the uncertain event. The requirement herein is that the parties must not have any idea about the result even if the event has been held in the past. This means the future event is not essential rather the parties must not be aware of the result. In the case of Jethmal Madanlal Jokotia v. Nevatia & Co, The parties must not be aware of the happening of the event or the, even if the event has happened in the past. The wager is based on chance. And therefore both parties must get an equal chance of winning and mutual opportunity must be given to both the parties to gain or lose. Agreements in which the results are determined towards one party then it is not a wagering agreement. There must be two outcomes of the event then only a fair chance will be given to the parties. If winning or losing is completely based on skill there is no wager.

In Baba sahib V. In this case, it was held that an agreement cannot be looked upon as a wagering agreement if it lacks the desire of winning or losing. The essence of the wager is that both parties must stand to win or lose to the result of an uncertain event. The parties to the agreement must only be focused on the outcome on which they have staked their money. The parties must not have any other interest in the event other than winning or losing. So the sole purpose must be betting. An insurable interest in the contract will not be called a wagering contract. There must be the absence of any kind of consideration from the parties to make it a wagering agreement. Neither of the party shall have any control over the happening of the event in one way or any other. If one of the parties gets the hold of the event this will hamper the essential element of water that is CHANCE. BIRDWOOD J in the case Dayabhai Tribhovandas v Lakshmichand[5] held that if the result in the hands of one party then there is no wagering agreement. Due to this essential of wagering agreement, skill-based events are exempted from the wagering agreement. It is to be noted that any agreement which is collateral to a wagering agreement is valid only if that itself is not a wagering agreement.

[Excerpt from Indian Legal Solution dated October 30, 2020

Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the given questions:

Wagering Agreement is not defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1860. Cotton, L.J. in Thacker v. Hardy said: “The essence of wagering and gaming is that one party is to win and other is to fall upon an upcoming event which at the time of the contract is of an uncertain nature, i.e., that if the future event sets out one way A will lose, but if it turns out another way, he will win.”The most essential element of a wagering agreement is the uncertainty of the future event. The parties must not be familiar with the result of the uncertain event. The requirement herein is that the parties must not have any idea about the result even if the event has been held in the past. This means the future event is not essential rather the parties must not be aware of the result. In the case of Jethmal Madanlal Jokotia v. Nevatia & Co, The parties must not be aware of the happening of the event or the, even if the event has happened in the past. The wager is based on chance. And therefore both parties must get an equal chance of winning and mutual opportunity must be given to both the parties to gain or lose. Agreements in which the results are determined towards one party then it is not a wagering agreement. There must be two outcomes of the event then only a fair chance will be given to the parties. If winning or losing is completely based on skill there is no wager.

In Baba sahib V. In this case, it was held that an agreement cannot be looked upon as a wagering agreement if it lacks the desire of winning or losing. The essence of the wager is that both parties must stand to win or lose to the result of an uncertain event. The parties to the agreement must only be focused on the outcome on which they have staked their money. The parties must not have any other interest in the event other than winning or losing. So the sole purpose must be betting. An insurable interest in the contract will not be called a wagering contract. There must be the absence of any kind of consideration from the parties to make it a wagering agreement. Neither of the party shall have any control over the happening of the event in one way or any other. If one of the parties gets the hold of the event this will hamper the essential element of water that is CHANCE. BIRDWOOD J in the case Dayabhai Tribhovandas v Lakshmichand[5] held that if the result in the hands of one party then there is no wagering agreement. Due to this essential of wagering agreement, skill-based events are exempted from the wagering agreement. It is to be noted that any agreement which is collateral to a wagering agreement is valid only if that itself is not a wagering agreement.

[Excerpt from Indian Legal Solution dated October 30, 2020

Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the given questions:

Wagering Agreement is not defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1860. Cotton, L.J. in Thacker v. Hardy said: “The essence of wagering and gaming is that one party is to win and other is to fall upon an upcoming event which at the time of the contract is of an uncertain nature, i.e., that if the future event sets out one way A will lose, but if it turns out another way, he will win.”The most essential element of a wagering agreement is the uncertainty of the future event. The parties must not be familiar with the result of the uncertain event. The requirement herein is that the parties must not have any idea about the result even if the event has been held in the past. This means the future event is not essential rather the parties must not be aware of the result. In the case of Jethmal Madanlal Jokotia v. Nevatia & Co, The parties must not be aware of the happening of the event or the, even if the event has happened in the past. The wager is based on chance. And therefore both parties must get an equal chance of winning and mutual opportunity must be given to both the parties to gain or lose. Agreements in which the results are determined towards one party then it is not a wagering agreement. There must be two outcomes of the event then only a fair chance will be given to the parties. If winning or losing is completely based on skill there is no wager.

In Baba sahib V. In this case, it was held that an agreement cannot be looked upon as a wagering agreement if it lacks the desire of winning or losing. The essence of the wager is that both parties must stand to win or lose to the result of an uncertain event. The parties to the agreement must only be focused on the outcome on which they have staked their money. The parties must not have any other interest in the event other than winning or losing. So the sole purpose must be betting. An insurable interest in the contract will not be called a wagering contract. There must be the absence of any kind of consideration from the parties to make it a wagering agreement. Neither of the party shall have any control over the happening of the event in one way or any other. If one of the parties gets the hold of the event this will hamper the essential element of water that is CHANCE. BIRDWOOD J in the case Dayabhai Tribhovandas v Lakshmichand[5] held that if the result in the hands of one party then there is no wagering agreement. Due to this essential of wagering agreement, skill-based events are exempted from the wagering agreement. It is to be noted that any agreement which is collateral to a wagering agreement is valid only if that itself is not a wagering agreement.

[Excerpt from Indian Legal Solution dated October 30, 2020