Void Agreements
__________________________________________________
No. Of Questions to be Answered : Random 20 out of 86
__________________________________________________
Questions and Answers
- 1.
The term 'void agreement' is defined in _____________.
- A.
Section 2(a)
- B.
Section 2(b)
- C.
Section 2(g)
- D.
Section 2(h)
Correct Answer
C. Section 2(g)Explanation
Section 2(g) of an unidentified legal document defines the term 'void agreement'.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
A void agreement is one which is
- A.
Not enforceable by law.
- B.
Enforceable at the option of both parties.
- C.
Enforceable at the option of one party.
- D.
Enforceable with permission of court.
Correct Answer
A. Not enforceable by law.Explanation
A void agreement is not enforceable by law because it lacks the essential elements required for a valid contract. It may be void due to illegality, impossibility, or lack of free consent. Therefore, it cannot be enforced by any party involved in the agreement.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
As per Section 2(g) an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be __________
- A.
Voidable
- B.
Void
- C.
Valid
- D.
Invalid.
Correct Answer
B. VoidExplanation
An agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void. This means that the agreement is considered to have no legal effect from the beginning, as if it never existed. Void agreements are usually unenforceable because they lack the essential elements required for a valid contract, such as mutual consent or legality of the subject matter. Therefore, parties to a void agreement have no legal obligations towards each other and cannot seek remedies or enforce any rights arising from the agreement.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Certain types of agreements have been expressly declared to be void by the Indian Contract Act.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The Indian Contract Act explicitly declares certain types of agreements to be void. This means that these agreements are not legally enforceable and have no legal effect. The Act provides specific provisions that render these agreements void, such as agreements made under coercion, agreements with minors, agreements made under fraud or misrepresentation, and agreements that are against public policy. Therefore, the statement that certain types of agreements have been expressly declared to be void by the Indian Contract Act is true.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Which of the following types of agreements have been expressly declared to be void? (i) Agreement by persons not competent to contract [Section 10]. (ii) Agreement under mutual mistake of fact [Section 20]. (iii) Agreement with unlawful object or consideration [Section 23]. (iv) Agreements with inadequate consideration
- A.
(i), (ii), (iii)
- B.
(i), (iii), (iv)
- C.
(i), (ii), (iv)
- D.
(ii), (iii), (iv).
Correct Answer
A. (i), (ii), (iii)Explanation
The correct answer is (i), (ii), (iii). According to the given information, these are the types of agreements that have been expressly declared to be void. Agreement by persons not competent to contract, agreement under mutual mistake of fact, and agreement with unlawful object or consideration are all specifically mentioned as void agreements in the respective sections of the law. Agreements with inadequate consideration is not mentioned as a void agreement, so it is not included in the correct answer.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Which of the following types of agreements have been expressly declared to be void ? (i) Agreements without consideration [Section 25]. (ii) Agreements in restraint of marriage [Section 26]. (iii) Agreements in restraint of trade [Section 27]. (iv) Agreements with inadequate consideration.
- A.
(i), (ii),(iv)
- B.
(ii), (iii), (iv)
- C.
(i), (iii), (iv)
- D.
(i), (ii), (iii)
Correct Answer
D. (i), (ii), (iii)Explanation
The correct answer is (i), (ii), (iii). According to the given sections of the law, agreements without consideration, agreements in restraint of marriage, and agreements in restraint of trade have been expressly declared to be void. This means that these types of agreements are not legally enforceable and hold no legal validity.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Which of the following types of agreements have been expressly declared to be void?
- A.
Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings [Section 28].
- B.
Agreements with uncertain meanings [Section 29]
- C.
Agreements to do impossible act [Section 56]
- D.
All of the above
Correct Answer
D. All of the aboveExplanation
The correct answer is "All of the above." This means that all three types of agreements mentioned in the options (agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, agreements with uncertain meanings, and agreements to do impossible acts) have been expressly declared to be void. According to Section 28, agreements in restraint of legal proceedings are void. Section 29 states that agreements with uncertain meanings are also void. Finally, Section 56 declares agreements to do impossible acts as void. Therefore, all three types of agreements mentioned in the options have been expressly declared to be void.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Wagering agreements have been declared to be void under
- A.
Section 24
- B.
Section 30
- C.
Section 29
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
B. Section 30Explanation
Wagering agreements involve placing bets on uncertain events, such as gambling. Section 30 of the law declares such agreements as void, meaning they have no legal effect. This is because they are considered to be against public policy and encourage gambling, which is generally seen as a harmful activity. Therefore, any agreement made for the purpose of wagering is not enforceable by law.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
An agreement in restraint of marriage i.e., which prevents a person from marrying, is
- A.
Valid
- B.
Voidable
- C.
Void
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
C. VoidExplanation
An agreement in restraint of marriage is void because it goes against public policy and the principles of personal freedom. Marriage is a fundamental right and individuals should not be restricted or prevented from entering into it. Therefore, any agreement that attempts to restrain or prohibit marriage is considered invalid and unenforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Agreements in restraint of marriage have been declared void under
- A.
Section 26
- B.
Section 27
- C.
Section 28
- D.
Section 29
Correct Answer
A. Section 26Explanation
Section 26 of the law states that agreements in restraint of marriage are considered void. This means that any agreement that restricts or prohibits someone from getting married is not legally enforceable. Therefore, the correct answer is Section 26.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Every agreement in restraint of marriage of any person other then a minor, is
- A.
Voidable
- B.
Void
- C.
Valid
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
B. VoidExplanation
An agreement in restraint of marriage of any person other than a minor is considered void because it goes against the principles of freedom and individual choice in marriage. Restraining someone from getting married is seen as a violation of their rights and is therefore not legally enforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
An agreement in restraint of marriage is void if the restraint is
- A.
Complete only
- B.
Partial only
- C.
Compete or partial
- D.
Approved by court.
Correct Answer
C. Compete or partialExplanation
An agreement in restraint of marriage is considered void if the restraint is either complete or partial. This means that any agreement that restricts or limits a person's freedom to marry, whether it is a complete prohibition or only a partial restriction, will be considered invalid. The law does not distinguish between complete or partial restraints when it comes to agreements in restraint of marriage. Therefore, both types of restraints are not enforceable and are deemed void.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
An agreement which puts restriction on a person from marrying is void under Section 26 being an agreement in restraint of
- A.
Liberty
- B.
Marriage
- C.
Legal right
- D.
Social right.
Correct Answer
B. MarriageExplanation
An agreement that restricts a person from marrying is void under Section 26 because it goes against the principle of marriage as a fundamental right. Marriage is considered a personal choice and a basic liberty, and any agreement that attempts to restrict or interfere with this right is not legally enforceable. Therefore, such an agreement is void and has no legal validity.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
An agreement which prevents a person from marrying altogether is
- A.
Allowed
- B.
Allowed with court permission
- C.
Void
- D.
Voidable
Correct Answer
C. VoidExplanation
An agreement which prevents a person from marrying altogether is considered void. This means that such an agreement is not legally enforceable and holds no legal validity. It goes against the principles of personal freedom and the right to marry, which are protected by law. Therefore, any agreement that restricts or prohibits marriage is deemed invalid and has no legal effect.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
An agreement which prevents a person from marrying a particular person or a person of particular class ,is
- A.
Void
- B.
Voidable
- C.
Valid
- D.
Allowed with court permission
Correct Answer
A. VoidExplanation
An agreement that restricts a person from marrying a specific individual or someone from a particular class is considered void. This means that the agreement holds no legal force or effect and is therefore unenforceable. Such agreements are against public policy as they infringe upon an individual's freedom to choose their life partner. Consequently, any attempt to enforce or uphold such an agreement would be deemed invalid by the court.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
An agreement which prevents a person from marrying for a fixed period only, is valid.
- A.
True,as it is not regarded as an agreement in restraint of marriage
- B.
False,as it also falls in the category of agreements in restraint of marriage
Correct Answer
B. False,as it also falls in the category of agreements in restraint of marriageExplanation
The given statement is false because an agreement that prevents a person from marrying for a fixed period is considered an agreement in restraint of marriage. Agreements in restraint of marriage are generally considered void and unenforceable because they are against public policy and restrict an individual's freedom to marry. Therefore, such an agreement would not be valid.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
An agreement in restraint of marriage is valid in case of
- A.
Married persons
- B.
Educated persons
- C.
Minors
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
C. MinorsExplanation
An agreement in restraint of marriage is valid in the case of minors. This means that if a contract is made between two minors that restricts their ability to get married, it will be considered legally binding. However, it is important to note that agreements in restraint of marriage are generally not enforceable and considered against public policy. This is because marriage is considered a fundamental right and individuals should have the freedom to enter into marriage without any restrictions.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
An agreement which prevents a person from marrying a particular person., is valid
- A.
True,as partial restraint is recognised try law.
- B.
False,as both restraints, complete or partial, makes the agreement void
Correct Answer
B. False,as both restraints, complete or partial, makes the agreement voidExplanation
The given answer is false because both complete and partial restraints make the agreement void. This means that any agreement that prevents a person from marrying a particular person, whether it is a complete or partial restraint, would not be considered valid.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
Under the English Law, an agreement restraint of marriage is void, if it puts a
- A.
A partial restraint only
- B.
An absolute restraint only
- C.
Either partial or absolute restraint
- D.
An absolute restraint with court permission
Correct Answer
B. An absolute restraint onlyExplanation
Under English Law, an agreement restraint of marriage is considered void if it puts an absolute restraint. This means that any agreement that completely prohibits or restricts a person from getting married is not legally enforceable. However, if the agreement includes a partial restraint, where certain conditions or limitations are placed on the marriage, it may still be considered valid. Additionally, an absolute restraint with court permission may also be allowed, but this is not the case according to English Law.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Under the English Law, as agreement restraining marriage with particular person or with a person of particular community, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Voidable
- C.
Illegal
- D.
Valid
Correct Answer
D. ValidExplanation
Under English Law, an agreement restraining marriage with a particular person or with a person of a particular community is considered valid. This means that such an agreement is legally enforceable and will be upheld by the courts. It is important to note that this answer is based on the information provided and may not be applicable in all jurisdictions.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
Agreements in restraint of trade have been expressly declared void under
- A.
Section 26
- B.
Section 27
- C.
Section 28
- D.
Section 29
Correct Answer
B. Section 27Explanation
Section 27 of the law declares agreements in restraint of trade as void. This means that any contract or agreement that restricts a person's freedom to carry on their trade or profession is not legally enforceable. The purpose of this provision is to promote fair competition and prevent monopolies or unfair business practices. By declaring such agreements void, Section 27 ensures that individuals have the freedom to engage in trade and pursue their chosen profession without unnecessary restrictions.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
An agreement which prevents a person from carrying a lawful business, is _____________.
- A.
Valid
- B.
Void
- C.
Voidable
- D.
Contingent
Correct Answer
B. VoidExplanation
An agreement which prevents a person from carrying a lawful business is considered void. This means that such an agreement has no legal effect and is unenforceable. It goes against the principles of freedom to engage in lawful activities and restricts the individual's right to earn a livelihood. Therefore, any agreement that restricts a person from carrying out a lawful business is considered void.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
An agreement is void if it restrains anyone from exercising
- A.
A lawful profession, trade or business
- B.
Any profession, trade or business
- C.
An unlawful profession, trade or business
- D.
None of these.
Correct Answer
A. A lawful profession, trade or businessExplanation
An agreement is considered void if it restrains anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business. This means that if an agreement restricts an individual from engaging in a legal occupation or business activity, it is not enforceable by law. However, if the agreement restricts an individual from engaging in an unlawful profession, trade, or business, it may still be valid. The answer indicates that only the restraint on a lawful profession, trade, or business renders the agreement void.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
As per Section 27, every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is
- A.
Completely void
- B.
Completely voidable
- C.
To that extent void
- D.
To that extent voidable.
Correct Answer
C. To that extent voidExplanation
As per Section 27, any agreement that restrains someone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business is only void to the extent of the restraint. This means that while the agreement may be valid in other aspects, the portion that restricts the person's ability to engage in their profession or business is considered void and unenforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
An agreement in a restraint of trade is void only it the restraint imposed, is ___________
- A.
Complete
- B.
Partial
- C.
Conditional
- D.
Any of these
Correct Answer
D. Any of theseExplanation
An agreement in a restraint of trade is void only if the restraint imposed is complete, partial, or conditional. This means that regardless of the extent or conditions of the restraint, if it is found to be in violation of trade laws or unfair competition regulations, the agreement becomes void. Therefore, any of these options can render the agreement void depending on the specific circumstances and legal considerations.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
Where an agreement in restraint of trade is divisible, then the
- A.
Unrestricted part is valid and enforceable
- B.
Whole agreement is void and unenforceable
- C.
Whole agreement is valid and enforceable
- D.
Restraint is not valid in the eyes of law.
Correct Answer
A. Unrestricted part is valid and enforceableExplanation
An agreement in restraint of trade is considered divisible when it can be separated into valid and enforceable parts. In this case, the unrestricted part of the agreement, which does not impose any restrictions on trade, is valid and enforceable. This means that the parties are allowed to engage in unrestricted trade activities as specified in that part of the agreement. However, the other parts of the agreement that impose restrictions on trade would be void and unenforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
Where an agreement in restraint of trade is not divisible, then the
- A.
Whole agreement is valid and enforceable
- B.
Whole agreement is void and unenforceable
- C.
Unrestricted part is valid and enforceable
- D.
None of these.
Correct Answer
B. Whole agreement is void and unenforceableExplanation
In cases where an agreement in restraint of trade is not divisible, it means that the agreement cannot be separated into different parts or clauses. In such situations, the entire agreement is considered as a whole and if it contains a restraint of trade clause, the entire agreement becomes void and unenforceable. This means that neither party can legally enforce the agreement or seek remedies for any breaches.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
A agrees to pay a certain sum of money to B, rival shopkeeper, If he closes his business in A's locality only. This agreement is
- A.
Valid
- B.
Voidable
- C.
Void
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
D. None of theseExplanation
The agreement between A and B is not valid because it involves the illegal act of restraining trade. It is against the principles of fair competition to force someone to close their business in a specific locality in exchange for money. Such agreements are generally considered void as they go against public policy and restrict free trade.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
A agrees to pay a certain sum of money to B, a rival shopkeeper, if he closes his business for there months in a year. This agreement is
- A.
Void
- B.
Voidable
- C.
Valid
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
A. VoidExplanation
This agreement is void because it involves an unlawful consideration. The agreement is essentially a contract to restrain trade, as A is agreeing to pay B to stop doing business for a certain period of time. Such agreements are against public policy and therefore void.Rate this question:
-
- 30.
All agreements in restraint of trade are void and there is no exception to this general rule.
- A.
True,as the Indian Contract Act specifically provides that there will be no exception.
- B.
False,as the Indian Contract Act and Partnership Act provides exceptions.
Correct Answer
B. False,as the Indian Contract Act and Partnership Act provides exceptions.Explanation
The correct answer is False because the Indian Contract Act and Partnership Act provide exceptions to the general rule that all agreements in restraint of trade are void. These acts allow for certain agreements that are reasonable and necessary for the protection of trade or business interests. Therefore, there are exceptions to the rule stated in the question.Rate this question:
-
- 31.
An agreement which restrains the seller of a good will from carrying on a similar business within specified local limits, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Voidable
- C.
Valid
- D.
Contingent
Correct Answer
C. ValidExplanation
An agreement which restrains the seller of a good from carrying on a similar business within specified local limits is considered valid. This means that such an agreement is legally enforceable and binding on the parties involved. The restriction placed on the seller is within reasonable limits and does not violate any laws or public policy. Therefore, the agreement is considered valid and can be upheld in a court of law.Rate this question:
-
- 32.
When the good will of business is sold , the seller may be restrained from carrying on similar business within specified local limits.
- A.
True, as it is the recognised exception under Section 27, which is necessary to protect the interest of purchaser of goodwill.
- B.
False,as all agreements in restraint of trade are void.
Correct Answer
A. True, as it is the recognised exception under Section 27, which is necessary to protect the interest of purchaser of goodwill.Explanation
The statement is true because Section 27 recognizes an exception to the general rule that all agreements in restraint of trade are void. In the case of selling the goodwill of a business, the seller may be restrained from carrying on a similar business within specified local limits. This exception is necessary to protect the interest of the purchaser of the goodwill.Rate this question:
-
- 33.
An agreement restraining the purchaser of goodwill from carrying on business will be valid and enforceable if the restriction.
- A.
Is reasonable if the restriction
- B.
Specifies the period for which it will remain in force
- C.
Is form carrying on a similar business only
- D.
All of the above conditions should be satisfied
Correct Answer
D. All of the above conditions should be satisfiedExplanation
For an agreement restraining the purchaser of goodwill from carrying on business to be valid and enforceable, all of the above conditions should be satisfied. This means that the restriction must be reasonable, it must specify the period for which it will remain in force, and it must only restrict the purchaser from carrying on a similar business. If any of these conditions are not met, the agreement may not be considered valid or enforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 34.
An agreement which restrains a continuing partner of a firm from carrying on any business, other then the business of the firm, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Voidable
- C.
Valid
- D.
Unlawful
Correct Answer
C. ValidExplanation
An agreement which restrains a continuing partner of a firm from carrying on any business, other than the business of the firm, is considered valid. This means that such an agreement is legally binding and enforceable. The restriction is seen as reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the firm and ensure that the partner's focus remains on the firm's business.Rate this question:
-
- 35.
A partner of a firm, so long as he is partner, can be restrained form carrying on
- A.
Any business
- B.
Similar business
- C.
Both of these
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
C. Both of theseExplanation
A partner of a firm can be restrained from carrying on any business or a similar business while he is a partner. This means that the partner may be restricted from engaging in any other business activities apart from the one he is currently involved in as a partner. This restriction is in place to ensure that the partner's focus and commitment remain with the firm and that there are no conflicts of interest or competition with the firm's business.Rate this question:
-
- 36.
An agreement which restrains an outgoing (i.e., retiring ) partner from carrying on the business similar to that of the firm, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Valid
- C.
Voidable
- D.
Unlawful
Correct Answer
B. ValidExplanation
An agreement which restrains an outgoing partner from carrying on a similar business to that of the firm is considered valid. This means that such agreements are legally enforceable and can be upheld in a court of law. The rationale behind this is to protect the interests of the remaining partners and the firm itself, as allowing the outgoing partner to compete directly could potentially harm the business. However, it is important to note that the validity of such agreements may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific terms and conditions outlined in the agreement.Rate this question:
-
- 37.
An outgoing (i.e., retiring) partner can be restrained from carrying on
- A.
Similar business only
- B.
Any business
- C.
Both of these
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
A. Similar business onlyExplanation
An outgoing partner can be restrained from carrying on a similar business only because there may be a non-compete agreement in place. This agreement would prevent the partner from starting a new business that directly competes with the existing business they were a part of. However, there may not be any restrictions on the partner starting a completely unrelated business. Therefore, the correct answer is "Similar business only."Rate this question:
-
- 38.
An agreement restraining the outgoing (.i.e., retiring) partner form carrying on business similar to that of the firm will be valid and enforceable if the restriction.
- A.
Is reasonable
- B.
Specifies the local limit
- C.
Specifies the period for which it will remain in force
- D.
All of these.
Correct Answer
D. All of these.Explanation
The correct answer is "All of these." An agreement restraining the outgoing partner from carrying on a similar business will be valid and enforceable if it is reasonable, specifies the local limit, and specifies the period for which it will remain in force. All three conditions need to be met for the agreement to be valid and enforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 39.
A service agreement which prevents an employee from working anywhere else during the period covered by service agreement, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Valid
- C.
Voidable
- D.
Illegal
Correct Answer
B. ValidExplanation
A service agreement that restricts an employee from working elsewhere during the period covered by the agreement is considered valid. This is because employers have the right to protect their business interests and ensure that employees are fully committed to their job responsibilities. By limiting the employee's ability to work elsewhere, the employer can ensure that the employee's focus remains solely on their duties within the organization. However, it is important to note that such agreements must comply with applicable laws and regulations to be enforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 40.
A service agreement which restrains an employee from accepting similar appointment after the termination of service, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Valid
- C.
Voidable
- D.
Illegal
Correct Answer
A. VoidExplanation
A service agreement that restricts an employee from accepting a similar appointment after their service has ended is considered void. This means that the agreement is not legally enforceable and holds no legal effect. Such agreements are generally against public policy as they limit an employee's freedom to seek employment and can be seen as a restraint of trade. Therefore, the agreement is invalid and cannot be enforced by either party.Rate this question:
-
- 41.
Regulations as to the opening and closing of business in the market, are
- A.
Not legal
- B.
Valid
- C.
Void
- D.
Illegal
Correct Answer
B. ValidExplanation
The regulations as to the opening and closing of business in the market are considered valid because they are legally binding and enforceable. These regulations are likely established by the relevant authorities to maintain order, ensure fair competition, and protect the interests of both businesses and consumers. As long as these regulations are in accordance with the law and are implemented fairly, they are considered valid and must be followed by businesses operating in the market.Rate this question:
-
- 42.
An agreement by a producer to sell all his output to one distributor who in turn agrees not to buy his requirement from any other producer, is
- A.
Valid
- B.
Void
- C.
Voidable
- D.
Illegal
Correct Answer
A. ValidExplanation
In this scenario, the agreement between the producer and the distributor is considered valid. This is because both parties have willingly entered into a contract where the producer agrees to sell all of their output exclusively to the distributor, and the distributor agrees not to purchase from any other producer. As long as there are no illegal or unethical terms involved, such an agreement is legally binding and enforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 43.
An agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is
- A.
Valid
- B.
Void
- C.
Voidable
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
B. VoidExplanation
An agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is considered void because it goes against public policy and the principles of justice. Such agreements restrict a person's right to access the legal system and seek justice, which is deemed unacceptable. The law aims to ensure that individuals have the freedom to pursue legal remedies and protect their rights, and any agreement that attempts to limit or restrain this freedom is deemed void and unenforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 44.
Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings have been declared as void under
- A.
Section 26
- B.
Section 27
- C.
Section 28
- D.
Section 29
Correct Answer
C. Section 28 -
- 45.
An agreement which completely retrains a person from enforcing his legal rights, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Valid
- C.
Voidable
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
A. VoidExplanation
An agreement which completely restrains a person from enforcing his legal rights is considered void. This means that the agreement is not legally binding and has no legal effect. Such agreements are against public policy as they restrict an individual's freedom to exercise their legal rights. Therefore, they are deemed invalid and unenforceable by the court.Rate this question:
-
- 46.
An agreement which partially restrains a person from enforcing his legal rights, is
- A.
Void
- B.
Valid
- C.
Voidable
- D.
None of these
Correct Answer
B. ValidExplanation
An agreement which partially restrains a person from enforcing his legal rights is considered valid. This means that the agreement is legally binding and enforceable to the extent that it does not completely restrict the person from exercising their legal rights. While certain restrictions may be placed on the person, as long as they are not excessive or against public policy, the agreement will be considered valid. It is important to note that if the agreement fully restrains a person from enforcing their legal rights, it would be considered void and unenforceable.Rate this question:
-
- 47.
A has the legal right to file a suit (legal case) against B either at Delhi or at Calcutta. A and B entered into an agreement, that A can enforce his rights at Delhi only and not in Calcutta. This agreement is
- A.
Valid, as it puts a partial restraint only
- B.
Void, as restraint, partial or absolute, renders an agreement void.
- C.
A contingent contract as it depends upon A's sacrifice
- D.
Illegal, as such restrictions are unlawful.
Correct Answer
A. Valid, as it puts a partial restraint onlyExplanation
The given answer is valid because the agreement between A and B restricts A from enforcing his rights in Calcutta, but allows him to do so in Delhi. This is considered a partial restraint, as it limits A's options but does not completely prevent him from taking legal action. Partial restraints are generally considered valid, whereas absolute restraints render an agreement void.Rate this question:
-
- 48.
A legal action for breach of contract may be initiated within three years form the date of breach. An agreement which provides that no action would be taken after two years, is
- A.
Valid, as it puts a partial restraint only
- B.
Void, as it curtails (i.e., cut shorts) the period of limitation which is expressly prohibited under Section 28
- C.
Illegal, as such restrains are unlawful
- D.
Enforceable with the permission of court
Correct Answer
B. Void, as it curtails (i.e., cut shorts) the period of limitation which is expressly prohibited under Section 28Explanation
The given answer is "Void, as it curtails (i.e., cut shorts) the period of limitation which is expressly prohibited under Section 28." This means that an agreement which states that no legal action can be taken after two years is considered void because it goes against the legal provision that allows three years to initiate a legal action for breach of contract. Section 28 expressly prohibits any curtailment or restriction on the period of limitation, making such an agreement illegal.Rate this question:
-
- 49.
Which of the following agreement is not void as being an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings?
- A.
An agreement which extinguishes the right of a party.
- B.
An agreement which discharges a party from liability.
- C.
An agreement which provides for a reference to arbitration instead of court of law.
- D.
An agreement which limits the time within a right may be enforced.
Correct Answer
C. An agreement which provides for a reference to arbitration instead of court of law.Explanation
An agreement which provides for a reference to arbitration instead of court of law is not void as being an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. This is because arbitration is a recognized and accepted alternative to court proceedings for resolving disputes. It is a voluntary process where the parties agree to submit their dispute to a neutral third party, who will make a binding decision. Therefore, such an agreement does not restrict or restrain the parties' access to legal proceedings, but rather provides them with an alternative method of resolving their disputes.Rate this question:
-
- 50.
An agreement which puts absolute restraint on legal proceedings is void and there is no exception to this rule.
- A.
True,as the Indian Contract Act specifically provides that there will be no exception.
- B.
False,as the exception have been provided in Explanation I and II of Section 28 itself.
Correct Answer
B. False,as the exception have been provided in Explanation I and II of Section 28 itself.Explanation
The correct answer is False. The explanation for this answer is that there are exceptions to the rule that an agreement which puts absolute restraint on legal proceedings is void. These exceptions are provided in Explanation I and II of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act.Rate this question:
-
Back to top