In this CLAT preparation series, we publish detailed answers to old CLAT exam questions well supported with statutory provisions, supporting judgments and easy illustrations.
Legal Aptitude: The section contains 50 questions. Each question contains legal principles based on statutory enactments and facts related to the same. These propositions may not be the true ones. The student has to presume that it is true for reaching the conclusion to the given problem. Four answer choices are given in each question from which the student has to select the most appropriate and reasonable conclusion based on the given principle. The section is aimed to test one’s ability in legal aptitude, awareness of the law, research aptitude and problem-solving ability. It may be noted that the most reasonable conclusion may be absurd or unacceptable for any reason, yet the student must adhere to the principle given to arrive at the same in the question.
Question 118. Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B’s girlfriend.
(A) B can enforce the agreement.
(B) B cannot enforce the agreement.
(C) A can enforce the agreement.
(D) Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act (in short “ICA”) specifies among other things that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties. The term “free consent” is specifically defined under Section 14 of the ICA. As per the said Section, Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence among other things. We are concerned with coercion only in this question.
Coercion is defined in Section 15 of the ICA. If a person with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement does the following things it is termed coercion:
- The committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code(Indian Penal Code is the penal law of India which defines different sorts of crimes and its punishments).
- Unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property to the prejudice of any person.
Thus it is clear that if a person forces another into an agreement, that agreement is not a contract.
If the above legal positions are clear, we may now on to the answer choices.
Option A: B can enforce the agreement.
In the given fact, A threatened B by pointing gun on the head of B’s girlfriend and thus obtained B’s consent to enter into an agreement. If you have thoroughly read the above legal provisions, it is understood that the act of threatening by A can be termed coercion. So by means of coercion, A has obtained B’s consent and that consent is not free consent. If the consent is not free, then that agreement is not a contract in the eyes of law as per Section 10 which is noted above.
Now the Option says that B can enforce the agreement. B is the one who is coerced or forced to enter into an agreement. If that agreement is not valid in the eyes of law, then how can B enforce the agreement?! Here, the principle states that an agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free. This means that B can enforce the agreement. So the correct answer to the question as per the given principle should be Choice A.
Again, this point has legal backing in Section 19 of the ICA. This says that an agreement, the consent to which is caused by coercion, is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. Hence it can be understood that though the agreement primarily which is not a contract due to the fact that the consent to which was obtained through force, can be enforced at the option of the person who is forced. “Voidable” is the word used in the above Section. There are mainly Valid, Void and Voidable Contracts. A valid contract is a clear contract by all means in the eyes of law and can be enforced without any problems. Void Contract is one that cannot be enforced as it does not have the backing of any law. A “voidable” contract is one which is primarily not a valid contract or which is an invalid contract due to lack of free consent but which can be made a valid one at the option of a party.
In the above fact, the agreement may be a valid one if agreed by both parties. B may not be interested in making a contract with A. Thus A forced B to obtain his consent. This is not a valid contract as it lacks free consent. But B may change his mind later and forgive A for his actions and thus the contract becomes valid one as B’s consent is now not a forced one.
Option B: B cannot enforce the agreement
The principle above states that B can enforce the agreement as he is the one who is forced into an agreement with A. If we thoroughly study the above legal provisions, it can be seen that the above Principle is a replica of Section 19 of the ICA. It is the option of B to consider the agreement as void one or to turn it into a valid one. Hence the agreement stated above is neither valid nor void, but a “voidable” one as it can be turned into a valid one at the option of B. Hence, it is not correct to say that B cannot enforce the agreement.
Option C: A can enforce the agreement
If we look at the above Principle, B is the one who is forced and A is the one who has used the force. The forced one can use the option to make the contract a valid one. As the law considers the contract as invalid one A cannot enforce the agreement as B can challenges it legally as being entered into using force. Here B may also have his girlfriend for giving evidence against A. They may also file a criminal case against A for threatening her. All these things will minimize A’s chances to enforce the agreement. Hence, it is clear that this Option is incorrect one.
Option D: Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement
A contract can be enforced by either of two parties to it. Here A and B are the parties to the agreement. Since A has used force against B to enter into the agreement, all rights are upon B to either plead against A for not enforcing the agreement or agree with A and make the consent obtained through force, a legal and valid one. So in the option A cannot enforce the agreement. But B can necessarily enforce it. Hence, the answer choice is incorrect.
Thanks for reading this post. Do not forget to share this blog post with your friends. Also, visit other questions which will be posted soon. Best wishes.
Disclaimer: The content of this post is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To know our detailed Disclaimer, go to this link. You may also enlighten us with corrections and suggestions through our contact form or through comments.
Sharing is Caring. Please share the content. This will inspire us to post more scholarly content in this blog.
To submit scholarly articles on law or law notes visit this link.
Subscribe to our official Telegram Channel here
Join our official WhatsApp Group here