Mohribibee vs dharmodas ghose case study

It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding on them.

Mohribibee vs dharmodas ghose case study

The secretary of a Mosque Committee filed a suit to enforce a promise which the promisor had made to subscribe Rs. Hence the suit was dismissed. Gauri Mohamed, The facts of this case were almost similar to those of the above case, but the secretary in this case incurred a liability on the strength of the promise.

The amount could be recovered, as the promise resulted in a sufficient detriment to the secretary. The promise could, however, be enforced only to the extent of the liability detriment incurred by the secretary. In this case, the promise, even though it was gratuitous, became enforceable because on the faith of the promise secretary had incurred a detriment.

Mohribibee vs dharmodas ghose case study

Baldeo, B spent some money on the improvement of a market at the desire of the Collector of the district. In consideration of this D who was using the market promised to pay some money to B. The agreement was void being without consideration as it had not moved at the desire of D.

Ramayya, An old lady, by a deed of gift, made over certain property to her daughter D, under the direction that she should pay her aunt, P sister of the old ladya certain sum of money annually. The same day D entered into an agreement with P to pay her the agreed amount.

Later, D refused to pay the amount on the plea that no consideration had moved from P to D. P was entitled to maintain suit as consideration had moved from the old lady, sister of P, to the daughter, D.

Debi Radha Rani vs. Ram Dass, D is ready to sue her husband for maintenance allowance. Kalu Raju, There was a promise to pay to the Vakil an additional sum if the suit was successful. The promise was void for want of consideration. The Vakil was under a pre-existing contractual obligation to render the best of his services under the original contract.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres Co. Sued him for the breach. Could not maintain the suit as it was stranger to the contract. Capacity to Contract Mohiri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose, In this case, a minor mortgaged his house in favour of a money-lender to secure a loan of Rs.

Subsequently the minor sued for setting aside the mortgage, stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage. The mortgage was void and, therefore, it was cancelled. Mistake of Law Solle vs. Butcher, Ignorantia juris non excusat, i. A party cannot be allowed to get any relief on the ground that it had done a particular act in ignorance of law.

A mistake of law is, therefore, no excuse, and the contract cannot be avoided. Mistake as to the Subject-Matter Couturier vs.Mohori Bibee v.

Dharmodas Ghose. CASE BRIEF. The plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghose, while he was a minor, mortgaged his property in favour of the defendant, Brahmo Dutt, who was a moneylender to secure a loan of Rs.

20, The actual amount of loan given was less than Rs. 20, We will write a custom sample essay on Dharmodas Ghose Case specifically for you for only $ $/page. Order now Law Case Study ; Lucy v.

Age of majority

Zehmer Case Brief ; send me this sample. send me this sample. Leave your email and we will send you an example after 24 hours SEND. Dharmodas Ghose CASE (). BRIEF FACTS- Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, entered into a contract for borrowing a sum of Rs.

20, out of which the lender paid the minor a sum of Rs.

Mohribibee vs dharmodas ghose case study

8,The minor executed mortgage of property in favour of the lender. Subsequently, the . Dharmodas Ghose CASE (). BRIEF FACTS- Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, entered into a contract for borrowing a sum of Rs.

20, out of which the lender paid the minor a sum of Rs. 8, Mohribibee Vs Dharmodas Ghose Case Study Dharmodas Ghose CASE ( BRIEF FACTS- Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, entered into a contract for borrowing a sum of Rs. 20, out of which the lender paid the minor a sum of Rs.

8, The minor executed mortgage of property in favour of the lender. Subsequently, the minor sued for setting .

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. On October 22, CASE BRIEF.

Mohori Bibee and Another Vs Dharmodas Ghose - Citation - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal

The plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghose, while he was a minor, mortgaged his property in favour of the defendant, Brahmo Dutt, who was a moneylender to secure a loan of Rs. 20, Minors are appearing in public life today more frequently than ever before.

A minor has to travel, to get.

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose - Academike