Time Left - 12:00 mins

CLAT 2022 || New Pattern Legal Reasoning Quiz || 24.01.2022

Attempt now to get your rank among 153 students!

Question 1

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

According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that were in restraint of marriage. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to the section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.

Under English Law, agreements that restrain marriage are discouraged as they are injurious to the increase in population and the moral welfare of the citizens. Back in 1768, a precedent was set by the Court of King's Bench in Lowe v. Peers where the defendant had entered a promise under seal to marry no one but the promisee, on penalty of paying her 1000 pounds within three months of marrying anyone else. The Court found the contract void as it was purely restrictive and carried no promise to carry on either side.

In Hartley v. Rice, it was held that a bet between two men that one of them would not marry within a specified time was void as it gave one of the parties a pecuniary interest in the man's celibacy. Further, under English Law brokerage contracts or promises made on the consideration of procuring or bringing about marriage, are held illegal on several social grounds. According to Chitty, a contract whose object is to restrain or prevent a party from marrying, or a deterrent to marriage in so far it makes any person uncertain whether he may marry or not, is against public policy. English Law, however, does not find agreements that partially restrain marriage to be void and in this, it parts ways with Indian law as stated in the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.

In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.

Further, unlike Section 28 which makes agreements only incomplete restraint of legal proceedings void, the choice of words of Section 26 keeps its scope rather general without forwarding a difference between partial or complete restraint of marriage and has been interpreted to hold an agreement serving to either result as void.

Sources: (Extracted, edited and recreated) : www.lawoctopus.com, www.ipleaders.com, www.latestlaws.com.



Which one of the following can be reasonably concluded from the passage above?

Question 2

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

According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that were in restraint of marriage. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to the section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.

Under English Law, agreements that restrain marriage are discouraged as they are injurious to the increase in population and the moral welfare of the citizens. Back in 1768, a precedent was set by the Court of King's Bench in Lowe v. Peers where the defendant had entered a promise under seal to marry no one but the promisee, on penalty of paying her 1000 pounds within three months of marrying anyone else. The Court found the contract void as it was purely restrictive and carried no promise to carry on either side.

In Hartley v. Rice, it was held that a bet between two men that one of them would not marry within a specified time was void as it gave one of the parties a pecuniary interest in the man's celibacy. Further, under English Law brokerage contracts or promises made on the consideration of procuring or bringing about marriage, are held illegal on several social grounds. According to Chitty, a contract whose object is to restrain or prevent a party from marrying, or a deterrent to marriage in so far it makes any person uncertain whether he may marry or not, is against public policy. English Law, however, does not find agreements that partially restrain marriage to be void and in this, it parts ways with Indian law as stated in the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.

In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.

Further, unlike Section 28 which makes agreements only incomplete restraint of legal proceedings void, the choice of words of Section 26 keeps its scope rather general without forwarding a difference between partial or complete restraint of marriage and has been interpreted to hold an agreement serving to either result as void.

Sources: (Extracted, edited and recreated) : www.lawoctopus.com, www.ipleaders.com, www.latestlaws.com.

Which of the following is true as per the author's submissions?

Question 3

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

According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that were in restraint of marriage. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to the section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.

Under English Law, agreements that restrain marriage are discouraged as they are injurious to the increase in population and the moral welfare of the citizens. Back in 1768, a precedent was set by the Court of King's Bench in Lowe v. Peers where the defendant had entered a promise under seal to marry no one but the promisee, on penalty of paying her 1000 pounds within three months of marrying anyone else. The Court found the contract void as it was purely restrictive and carried no promise to carry on either side.

In Hartley v. Rice, it was held that a bet between two men that one of them would not marry within a specified time was void as it gave one of the parties a pecuniary interest in the man's celibacy. Further, under English Law brokerage contracts or promises made on the consideration of procuring or bringing about marriage, are held illegal on several social grounds. According to Chitty, a contract whose object is to restrain or prevent a party from marrying, or a deterrent to marriage in so far it makes any person uncertain whether he may marry or not, is against public policy. English Law, however, does not find agreements that partially restrain marriage to be void and in this, it parts ways with Indian law as stated in the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.

In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.

Further, unlike Section 28 which makes agreements only incomplete restraint of legal proceedings void, the choice of words of Section 26 keeps its scope rather general without forwarding a difference between partial or complete restraint of marriage and has been interpreted to hold an agreement serving to either result as void.

Sources: (Extracted, edited and recreated) : www.lawoctopus.com, www.ipleaders.com, www.latestlaws.com.

According to the passage which of the following is the main reason behind invalidity of a contract?

Question 4

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

According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that were in restraint of marriage. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to the section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.

Under English Law, agreements that restrain marriage are discouraged as they are injurious to the increase in population and the moral welfare of the citizens. Back in 1768, a precedent was set by the Court of King's Bench in Lowe v. Peers where the defendant had entered a promise under seal to marry no one but the promisee, on penalty of paying her 1000 pounds within three months of marrying anyone else. The Court found the contract void as it was purely restrictive and carried no promise to carry on either side.

In Hartley v. Rice, it was held that a bet between two men that one of them would not marry within a specified time was void as it gave one of the parties a pecuniary interest in the man's celibacy. Further, under English Law brokerage contracts or promises made on the consideration of procuring or bringing about marriage, are held illegal on several social grounds. According to Chitty, a contract whose object is to restrain or prevent a party from marrying, or a deterrent to marriage in so far it makes any person uncertain whether he may marry or not, is against public policy. English Law, however, does not find agreements that partially restrain marriage to be void and in this, it parts ways with Indian law as stated in the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.

In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.

Further, unlike Section 28 which makes agreements only incomplete restraint of legal proceedings void, the choice of words of Section 26 keeps its scope rather general without forwarding a difference between partial or complete restraint of marriage and has been interpreted to hold an agreement serving to either result as void.

Sources: (Extracted, edited and recreated) : www.lawoctopus.com, www.ipleaders.com, www.latestlaws.com.

A suit was filed by the Air Hostesses working at Aetihad Airways Ltd., which were catering to domestic flights and also to international travel. The Air Hostesses had filed the plaint against Employees Service Regulations which provided that an air Hostesses retired from service in case of marriage, if it took place within four years of the service. With reference to the passage, decide the validity of the condition.

Question 5

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

According to Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements in restraint of marriage except that of a minor are void. Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that were in restraint of marriage. The basis of making agreements in restraint of marriage void is that marriage is a sacrament and nothing should interfere in the institution of marriage, not even contracts. The idea behind this provision is to not snatch away the personal right of every individual to marry someone of their own choice. It is important to note here that according to the section, agreements in restraint of marriage of a minor are not void.

Under English Law, agreements that restrain marriage are discouraged as they are injurious to the increase in population and the moral welfare of the citizens. Back in 1768, a precedent was set by the Court of King's Bench in Lowe v. Peers where the defendant had entered a promise under seal to marry no one but the promisee, on penalty of paying her 1000 pounds within three months of marrying anyone else. The Court found the contract void as it was purely restrictive and carried no promise to carry on either side.

In Hartley v. Rice, it was held that a bet between two men that one of them would not marry within a specified time was void as it gave one of the parties a pecuniary interest in the man's celibacy. Further, under English Law brokerage contracts or promises made on the consideration of procuring or bringing about marriage, are held illegal on several social grounds. According to Chitty, a contract whose object is to restrain or prevent a party from marrying, or a deterrent to marriage in so far it makes any person uncertain whether he may marry or not, is against public policy. English Law, however, does not find agreements that partially restrain marriage to be void and in this, it parts ways with Indian law as stated in the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.

In India, contractual relationships between two or more parties are mainly dealt with by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the British imperial government which exercised control over the country at that time. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that every agreement in restraint of marriage, except those in restraint of marriage of minors, is void.

Further, unlike Section 28 which makes agreements only incomplete restraint of legal proceedings void, the choice of words of Section 26 keeps its scope rather general without forwarding a difference between partial or complete restraint of marriage and has been interpreted to hold an agreement serving to either result as void.

Sources: (Extracted, edited and recreated) : www.lawoctopus.com, www.ipleaders.com, www.latestlaws.com.

A woman X, had married a man without the consent of her nearest male relative. Her nearest kin instituted a case in the court. It was contended by the kin that the bridegroom Y who married his sister X without the consent of her nearest male relative must pay to the man an amount called bride-price under customary law. Decide the validity of the claim in this hypothetical situation:

Question 6

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

Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or corporation.

If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.

The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of a breach. The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.

Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of the 16th century. But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action". The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case with Levettv Hawes. In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the user shall be changed and transferred to the son as if it were a covenant with himself, and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son." However, later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.

Sources: (Extracted, Edited & Recreated): blog.ipleadrers.in, legalservices india.in, www.lawtimesjournal.in.



Which of the following could be logically as well as legally deduced from the passage?

Question 7

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

Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or corporation.

If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.

The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of a breach. The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.

Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of the 16th century. But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action". The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case with Levettv Hawes. In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the user shall be changed and transferred to the son as if it were a covenant with himself, and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son." However, later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.

Sources: (Extracted, Edited & Recreated): blog.ipleadrers.in, legalservices india.in, www.lawtimesjournal.in.

Which of the following is true with reference to the beneficiary in privity principle?

Question 8

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

Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or corporation.

If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.

The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of a breach. The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.

Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of the 16th century. But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action". The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case with Levettv Hawes. In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the user shall be changed and transferred to the son as if it were a covenant with himself, and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son." However, later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.

Sources: (Extracted, Edited & Recreated): blog.ipleadrers.in, legalservices india.in, www.lawtimesjournal.in.

In England, John Wilton, a father, brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son, Joe Wilton. With reference to the passage, decide the validity of the father's claim.

Question 9

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

Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or corporation.

If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.

The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of a breach. The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.

Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of the 16th century. But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action". The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case with Levettv Hawes. In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the user shall be changed and transferred to the son as if it were a covenant with himself, and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son." However, later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.

Sources: (Extracted, Edited & Recreated): blog.ipleadrers.in, legalservices india.in, www.lawtimesjournal.in.

Leonardo was appointed by his father as his successor and was put in possession of his entire estate. In consideration, thereof Leonardo agreed with his father to pay a certain sum on money and to give a penthouse to Vincii, the illegitimate son of his father, on his attaining majority. With reference to the passage, decide the most appropriate legal rationale:

Question 10

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

Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or corporation.

If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.

The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of a breach. The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent. Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under the contract, and infringement is proved.

Though the doctrine of privity was recognised and established in the case of Tweddle v. Atkinson, its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of the 16th century. But in these cases, it can be seen that the Courts rather decided upon them by keeping in mind the so-called 'Interest Theory'. This theory basically meant that only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up action before the court, or in the words of the Court, "He that hath interest in the promise shall have the action". The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in 1599. This was the case with Levettv Hawes. In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. The court was of the opinion that the action ought to have been brought by the son, "for the promise is made to the son's use and the ordinary covenants of marriage are with the father to stand seized to the son's use; and the user shall be changed and transferred to the son as if it were a covenant with himself, and the damage of non-performance is thereof to the son." However, later the English courts accepted the view that if a promise in a simple contract was made expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract.

Sources: (Extracted, Edited & Recreated): blog.ipleadrers.in, legalservices india.in, www.lawtimesjournal.in.

What is the legal deduction which says that, only he who had an interest in the promise could bring up an action before the court, or in the words of the Court?
  • 153 attempts
  • 1 upvote
  • 1 comment
Jan 24CLAT UG