Case Law: Mohri Bibi vs.

Dharmodas Ghose
Contract with a Minor is Absolutely Void Abinitio:

Facts of the case: In this case, a minor Dharmodas mortagaged his house in favour of Brahm
Dutt, husband of Mohri for a loan of Rs. 20,000/-, out of which the mortgagee (money-lender)
paid the minor a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. Subsequently, Dharmodas sued for setting aside the
mortgage, stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage.

Judgement: The Privy Council held that the mortgage was void and, therefore, it was cancelled.
The court also did not accept the moneylender’s request for the repayment of the amount
advanced to the minor as part of the consideration for mortgage.

Case law: Napier v National Business Agency Ltd. [1951]

Illegal contract of employment:

Facts of the case: The plaintiff sought to sue for wrongful dismissal on a contract of
employment under which he was paid £13 salary per week and £6 "expenses", when his
expenses could never exceed £1 per week.

Judgement: The parties had made this bargain knowing well that the expenses figure was a
sham figure and that by making the agreement in that form they were intending to defeat the
proper claims of the Revenue. The contract was therefore against public policy and
unenforceable.

Case Law: Hadley vs. Baxendale (1854)

Special damages:

Facts of the case: In this case, there was a breakdown of a shaft in Hadley’s mill, and the
operation of the mill came to stop. Hadley delivered the shaft to Baxendale to get it repaired
from the manufacturer in Greenwich. By the neglect of Baxendale, the delivery of the shaft was
delayed beyond a reasonable time, and Hadley’s mill was idle for a longer time that it would
have been if there was no breach on the part of Baxendale, and Hadley was put to loss because of
it. Hadley filed a claim against Baxendale for the expenses incurred and damages for the loss he
had suffered because of the mill being idle.

Judgement: The court accepted Hadley’s claim for the expenses he had undergone because
these had resulted from the breach of court and could be claimed as damages, but it refused to
accept Hadley’s claim to be reimbursed for the loss of profit (which he would have earned if the
mill was no idle) because of the reason for such loss being indirect and remote. It held that such
claim was only valid if the other party had prior information that delay in the delivery of shaft
would entail a loss to the mill.
 Case Law: Startup v Macdonald (1843)

Contract of Performance:

Facts of the case: A contract stated that 10 tons of oil were to be delivered to the defendant
within the last 14 days of March. The claimant delivered the oil at 8.30pm Saturday March 31st.
The defendant refused to accept the delivery because of the lateness of the hour.

Judgement: The claimant had tendered performance within the agreed contractual period and
was thus entitled to damages for non acceptance.

In Startup V. Macdonald, 6 M. & G. 625, Parke, B., said: "Where a thing is to be

done anywhere, a tender at a convenient time before midnight is sufficient; where the tender is to
be done in a particular place, and where the law implies a duty on the party to whom the thing is
to be done to attend, that attendance is to be by daylight, and a convenient time before sunset.

Case Law: P. Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Ammal (1977)

HeadNote(s)
Contract Act (IX of 1872), section 16 — Undue influence and coercion — Particular to be
furnished — Burden of proof — Daughter executing a deed of sale along with her mother in
favour of her sisters before marriage — Plea of undue Influence not sustainable — Indequacy of
sale consideration, not a ground to hold document inoperative

Case law: Love Vs. Peers

Facts of the case: In this case, L entered into an agreement with R for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- if
he does not marry P. Later R marries P, L approaches the court of law for the recovery of money
because the agreement made by him restraint of marriage.

Judgement: Every agreement in restraint of marriage of any person other than a minor. This is
because the law regards marriage and married status as the right of every individual.