Syllabus for Mid term exam
Meaning and importance of Industrial relations
Objectives of IR
Stakeholders in IR
Problems of IR
Impact of globalisation on IR
ILO
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Attention! PTU students
All PTU students are required to submit their assignment (given on the blog itself) on 22nd October 2009. The presentations shall be held after your exams. (1st week of November)
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Presentation
All students are required to make two powerpoint presentations. (Individual)(Both are compulsory)
The presentations shall carry 5 marks each.
Topics
(1)Examine a contract (from the net, any contract sourced from friends, relatives or your own business) and check if the essential elements of a contract are present.
(2) One consumer complaint (Complaint-Decision)
Guidelines
-Both the powerpoint presentations must be send by soft copy. (santhiuk@rediffmail.com)
-A Hard copy printout of both the presentations also should be submitted on the day of the presentation.
-The student should come prepared with both the presentations on the day of the presentation.
-The presentations shall take place in the Last week of October (from 26/10/09).
-If presentations are found with similar content the presentation of those students is deemed to be cancelled and will get zero marks.
The presentations shall carry 5 marks each.
Topics
(1)Examine a contract (from the net, any contract sourced from friends, relatives or your own business) and check if the essential elements of a contract are present.
(2) One consumer complaint (Complaint-Decision)
Guidelines
-Both the powerpoint presentations must be send by soft copy. (santhiuk@rediffmail.com)
-A Hard copy printout of both the presentations also should be submitted on the day of the presentation.
-The student should come prepared with both the presentations on the day of the presentation.
-The presentations shall take place in the Last week of October (from 26/10/09).
-If presentations are found with similar content the presentation of those students is deemed to be cancelled and will get zero marks.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Note
Students who have not submitted their assignments on 1st October need not submit the assignemnt anymore. You will get zero (0) marksfor assignments.
All students who have below 50% attendannce will get zero (0) marks for the attendance component.
All students who have below 50% attendannce will get zero (0) marks for the attendance component.
Cases on Company Law
1. Separate Legal Entity
Salmon vs. Salmon & Co. Ltd., (1877)
Salmon was a leather merchant. He sold his business for a sum of £30,000 to a company formed by him along with his wife, a daughter and four sons. The purchase consideration was satisfied by allotment of 20,000 shares of £1 each and issue of debentures worth £10,000, secured by a floating charge on the company’s assets in favour of Mr. Salmon. All the share holders subscribed for one share of £1 each. Mr. Salmon was appointed the managing director of the company. The company almost immediately ran into difficulties and eventually become insolvent and winding up commenced. At the time of winding up, the total assets of the company amounted to £6,050; its liabilities were £10,000 secured by the debentures issued to Mr. Salmon and £8,000 owing to unsecured trade creditors. The unsecured sundry creditors claimed the whole of the company’s assets, viz. £6,050 on the ground that company was a mere alias or agent for Salmon.
Held: The contention of the trade creditors could not be maintained because the company, being by law a person quite distinct from its members, could not be regarded as an ‘alias’ or agent or trustee for Salmon. Also the company’s assets must be applied in payment of the debentures as a secured creditor is entitled to payment out of the assets on which his debt is secured, on priority to unsecured creditors.
It can be inferred from Salmon’s case that there need not be any equilibrium or equitable distribution of voting amongst the members of the company. Mr. Salmon had £20,000 shares, whereas all other members had one share of £1 each.
Lee vs. Lee Farming Limited (1960)
A company was formed for the purpose of manufacturing aerial top-dressing. Lee, a qualified pilot, held all but one of the shares in the company and by the articles was appointed governing director of the company and chief pilot. Lee was killed while piloting the company’s aircraft and his widow claimed compensation for his death under the Workmen Compensation Act. The company opposed the claim on the ground that Lee was not a ‘worker’ as the same person could not be employer and the employee.
Held: There was a valid contract of service between Lee and the company and Lee, was therefore, a worker. Mrs. Lee’s contention was upheld.
2. Separate Property
Bacha F. Guzdar vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay (1955)
The plaintiff (Mrs Guzdar) received certain amounts as dividend in respect of shares held by her in a tea company. Under the Indian Income-tax Act, agricultural income is exempted from payment of income-tax. As income of a tea company is partly agricultural, only 40 per cent of the company’s income is treated as income from manufacture and sale, and therefore, liable to tax. The plaintiff claimed that the dividend income in her hands should be treated as agricultural income up to 60 per cent, as in the case tea company, on the ground that dividends received by shareholders represented the income of the company.
Held: Though the income in the hands of the company was partly agricultural yet the same income when received by Mrs. Guzdar as dividend could not be regarded as agricultural income.
It can be referred from Mrs. Guzdar’s case that a shareholder of a company is not a part-owner or co-owner of the company or its property. He is only given certain rights by law, for example, to attend and vote at the meetings of the shareholders, to receive dividend. Thus the property of the company belongs to the company and not to its shareholders.
Macaure vs. Northern Insurance co. Ltd., (1925)
‘Macaure’ held all except one share of a timber company. He had also advanced substantial amount to the company. He got insured the company’s timber in his personal name. On timber being destroyed by fire his claim was rejected for want of insurable interest. The court, applying principle of separate legal entity, held that the insurance company was not liable.
3. For The Protection of Revenue
In re Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit (1927)
D was a rich man having dividend and interest income. He wanted to avoid income-tax. For this purpose, he formed four private companies, in all of which he was the majority share holder. The companies made investments and whenever interest and dividend income were received by the companies, D applied to the companies for loans, which were immediately granted and he never repaid. In a legal proceeding the corporate veil of all the companies were lifted and the income of the companies treated as if they were of ‘D’.
4. Where a Company has been Formed by Certain Persons to Avoid their Own Valid Contractual Obligations
Gilford Motor Co. Vs. Horne (1933)
A sold his business to B and agreed not to compete with him for a given number of years within reasonable local limits. A, desirous of re-entering business, in violation of the contractual obligation, formed a private company with majority shareholdings. B filed a suit against A and the private company and the court granted an injunction restraining A and his company with going ahead in the competing business.
5. Where a Company has been Formed for Some Fraudulent Purpose or Is A ‘Sham’
Construction Company (P) Ltd., (1996)
The Skipper Construction Company failed to pay the full purchase price of a plot to DDA. Instead, construction was started and space sold to various persons. The two sons of the directors who had business in their own names claimed that they had separated from the father and the companies they were running had nothing to do with the properties of their parents. But no satisfactory proof in support of their claim could be produced.
Held: that the transfer of shareholding between the father and the sons must also be treated as a sham. The fact that the director and members of his family had created several corporate bodies, did not prevent to the court from treating all of them as one entity belonging to and controlled by the director and his family.
6. Where a Company Formed is Against Public Interest or Public Policy
Daimler Co. Ltd., vs. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (1916)
C company was floated in London for marketing tyres manufactured in Germany. The majority of the C’s shares were held by German nationals residing in Germany. During World War I, C company filed a suit against D company for the recovery of trade debt. The D company contented that C company was an alien enemy company (Germany being at war with England at that time) and that the payment of the debt would be trading with the enemy. The court agreed with the contention of the defendants.
Salmon vs. Salmon & Co. Ltd., (1877)
Salmon was a leather merchant. He sold his business for a sum of £30,000 to a company formed by him along with his wife, a daughter and four sons. The purchase consideration was satisfied by allotment of 20,000 shares of £1 each and issue of debentures worth £10,000, secured by a floating charge on the company’s assets in favour of Mr. Salmon. All the share holders subscribed for one share of £1 each. Mr. Salmon was appointed the managing director of the company. The company almost immediately ran into difficulties and eventually become insolvent and winding up commenced. At the time of winding up, the total assets of the company amounted to £6,050; its liabilities were £10,000 secured by the debentures issued to Mr. Salmon and £8,000 owing to unsecured trade creditors. The unsecured sundry creditors claimed the whole of the company’s assets, viz. £6,050 on the ground that company was a mere alias or agent for Salmon.
Held: The contention of the trade creditors could not be maintained because the company, being by law a person quite distinct from its members, could not be regarded as an ‘alias’ or agent or trustee for Salmon. Also the company’s assets must be applied in payment of the debentures as a secured creditor is entitled to payment out of the assets on which his debt is secured, on priority to unsecured creditors.
It can be inferred from Salmon’s case that there need not be any equilibrium or equitable distribution of voting amongst the members of the company. Mr. Salmon had £20,000 shares, whereas all other members had one share of £1 each.
Lee vs. Lee Farming Limited (1960)
A company was formed for the purpose of manufacturing aerial top-dressing. Lee, a qualified pilot, held all but one of the shares in the company and by the articles was appointed governing director of the company and chief pilot. Lee was killed while piloting the company’s aircraft and his widow claimed compensation for his death under the Workmen Compensation Act. The company opposed the claim on the ground that Lee was not a ‘worker’ as the same person could not be employer and the employee.
Held: There was a valid contract of service between Lee and the company and Lee, was therefore, a worker. Mrs. Lee’s contention was upheld.
2. Separate Property
Bacha F. Guzdar vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay (1955)
The plaintiff (Mrs Guzdar) received certain amounts as dividend in respect of shares held by her in a tea company. Under the Indian Income-tax Act, agricultural income is exempted from payment of income-tax. As income of a tea company is partly agricultural, only 40 per cent of the company’s income is treated as income from manufacture and sale, and therefore, liable to tax. The plaintiff claimed that the dividend income in her hands should be treated as agricultural income up to 60 per cent, as in the case tea company, on the ground that dividends received by shareholders represented the income of the company.
Held: Though the income in the hands of the company was partly agricultural yet the same income when received by Mrs. Guzdar as dividend could not be regarded as agricultural income.
It can be referred from Mrs. Guzdar’s case that a shareholder of a company is not a part-owner or co-owner of the company or its property. He is only given certain rights by law, for example, to attend and vote at the meetings of the shareholders, to receive dividend. Thus the property of the company belongs to the company and not to its shareholders.
Macaure vs. Northern Insurance co. Ltd., (1925)
‘Macaure’ held all except one share of a timber company. He had also advanced substantial amount to the company. He got insured the company’s timber in his personal name. On timber being destroyed by fire his claim was rejected for want of insurable interest. The court, applying principle of separate legal entity, held that the insurance company was not liable.
3. For The Protection of Revenue
In re Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit (1927)
D was a rich man having dividend and interest income. He wanted to avoid income-tax. For this purpose, he formed four private companies, in all of which he was the majority share holder. The companies made investments and whenever interest and dividend income were received by the companies, D applied to the companies for loans, which were immediately granted and he never repaid. In a legal proceeding the corporate veil of all the companies were lifted and the income of the companies treated as if they were of ‘D’.
4. Where a Company has been Formed by Certain Persons to Avoid their Own Valid Contractual Obligations
Gilford Motor Co. Vs. Horne (1933)
A sold his business to B and agreed not to compete with him for a given number of years within reasonable local limits. A, desirous of re-entering business, in violation of the contractual obligation, formed a private company with majority shareholdings. B filed a suit against A and the private company and the court granted an injunction restraining A and his company with going ahead in the competing business.
5. Where a Company has been Formed for Some Fraudulent Purpose or Is A ‘Sham’
Construction Company (P) Ltd., (1996)
The Skipper Construction Company failed to pay the full purchase price of a plot to DDA. Instead, construction was started and space sold to various persons. The two sons of the directors who had business in their own names claimed that they had separated from the father and the companies they were running had nothing to do with the properties of their parents. But no satisfactory proof in support of their claim could be produced.
Held: that the transfer of shareholding between the father and the sons must also be treated as a sham. The fact that the director and members of his family had created several corporate bodies, did not prevent to the court from treating all of them as one entity belonging to and controlled by the director and his family.
6. Where a Company Formed is Against Public Interest or Public Policy
Daimler Co. Ltd., vs. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (1916)
C company was floated in London for marketing tyres manufactured in Germany. The majority of the C’s shares were held by German nationals residing in Germany. During World War I, C company filed a suit against D company for the recovery of trade debt. The D company contented that C company was an alien enemy company (Germany being at war with England at that time) and that the payment of the debt would be trading with the enemy. The court agreed with the contention of the defendants.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Cases on contract Act
Consideration
1.Abdul Aziz vs. Masum Ali, (1914).
The secretary of a Mosque Committee filed a suit to enforce a promise which the promisor had made to subscribe Rs. 500 to the re-building of a mosque.
Held: “the promise was not enforceable because there was no consideration in the sense of benefit”, as “the person who made the promise gained nothing in return for the promise made”, and the secretary of the Committee to whom the promise was made, suffered no detriment as nothing had been done to carry out the repairs. Hence the suit was dismissed.
2.Kedar Nath vs. Gauri Mohamed, (1886)
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.
Held: 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.
3.Durga Prasad vs. Baldeo, (1880)
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.
Held: The agreement was void being without consideration as it had not moved at the desire of D.
4.Chinnaya vs. Ramayya, (1882)
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 lady), a 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.
Held: P was entitled to maintain suit as consideration had moved from the old lady, sister of P, to the daughter, D.
5. Debi Radha Rani vs. Ram Dass, (1941)
D is ready to sue her husband for maintenance allowance. On husband’s agreeing to pay her a monthly allowance by way of maintenance, she forbears to sue.
Held: The wife’s forbearance to sue amount to consideration for the husband’s agreement for payment of maintenance allowance.
6. Ramchandra Chintaman vs. Kalu Raju, (1877)
There was a promise to pay to the Vakil an additional sum if the suit was successful.
Held: 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.
7. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres Co. Ltd. Vs. Selfridge & Co. Ltd., (1915)
S bought tyres from the Dunlop Rubber Co. & sold them to D, a sub-dealer, who agreed with S not to sell these tyres below Dunlop’s list price and to pay the Dunlop Co. £5 as damages on every tyre D undersold, D sold two tyres at less than the list price and thereupon the Dunlop Co. Sued him for the breach.
Held: The Dunlop Co. Could not maintain the suit as it was stranger to the contract.
Capacity to Contract
Mohiri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose, (1903)
In this case, a minor mortgaged his house in favour of a money-lender to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000 out of which the mortgagee (the money-lender) paid the minor a sum of Rs. 8,000. Subsequently the minor sued for setting aside the mortgage, stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage.
Held: The mortgage was void and, therefore, it was cancelled. Further the money-lender’s request for the repayment of the amount advanced to the minor as part of the consideration for the mortgage was also not accepted.
Mistake of Law
Solle vs. Butcher, (1950)
Ignorantia juris non excusat, i.e., ignorance of law is no excuse, is a well settled rule of law. 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. Hastie, (1856)
A agreed to sell a cargo of corn supposed at the time of contract to be in transit from Salonica to the United Kingdom. Unknown to the parties, the corn had become fermented and had already been sold by the master of the ship at Tunis.
Held: The agreement was void and the buyer was not liable for the price.
Mistake as to the Identity of the Subject-Matter
Raffles vs. Wichelhaus, (1864)
W agreed to buy from R a cargo of cotton “to arrive ex-peerless from Bombay”. There were two ships of that name sailing from Bombay, one sailing in October and the other in December. W meant the former ship but R meant the latter contract.
Remedies for Breach of Contract
Hadley vs. Baxendale
X’s mill was stopped by the breakdown of a shaft. He delivered the shaft to Y, a common carrier, to be taken to a manufacturer to copy it make a new one. X did not make known to Y that delay would result in loss of profits. By some neglect on the part of Y the delivery of the shaft was delayed in transit beyond a reasonable time (so that the mill was idle for a longer period than otherwise would have been the case had there been no breach of the contract of carriage).
Held: Y was not liable for loss of profits during the period of delay as the circumstances communicated to Y did not show that a delay in the delivery of the shaft would entail loss of profits to the mill.
Alderson, B observed in this case as follows:
“Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both the parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.”
Quasi Contracts
Damodar Mudaliar vs. Secretary of State for India, (1894)
A village was irrigated by a tank. The Government effected certain repairs to the tank for its preservation and had no intention to do so gratuitously for the zamindars. The zamindars enjoyed the benefit thereof.
Held: They were liable to contribute.
Acknowledgements:
Mercantile law by ND Kapoor
Nimita Singh
1.Abdul Aziz vs. Masum Ali, (1914).
The secretary of a Mosque Committee filed a suit to enforce a promise which the promisor had made to subscribe Rs. 500 to the re-building of a mosque.
Held: “the promise was not enforceable because there was no consideration in the sense of benefit”, as “the person who made the promise gained nothing in return for the promise made”, and the secretary of the Committee to whom the promise was made, suffered no detriment as nothing had been done to carry out the repairs. Hence the suit was dismissed.
2.Kedar Nath vs. Gauri Mohamed, (1886)
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.
Held: 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.
3.Durga Prasad vs. Baldeo, (1880)
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.
Held: The agreement was void being without consideration as it had not moved at the desire of D.
4.Chinnaya vs. Ramayya, (1882)
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 lady), a 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.
Held: P was entitled to maintain suit as consideration had moved from the old lady, sister of P, to the daughter, D.
5. Debi Radha Rani vs. Ram Dass, (1941)
D is ready to sue her husband for maintenance allowance. On husband’s agreeing to pay her a monthly allowance by way of maintenance, she forbears to sue.
Held: The wife’s forbearance to sue amount to consideration for the husband’s agreement for payment of maintenance allowance.
6. Ramchandra Chintaman vs. Kalu Raju, (1877)
There was a promise to pay to the Vakil an additional sum if the suit was successful.
Held: 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.
7. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres Co. Ltd. Vs. Selfridge & Co. Ltd., (1915)
S bought tyres from the Dunlop Rubber Co. & sold them to D, a sub-dealer, who agreed with S not to sell these tyres below Dunlop’s list price and to pay the Dunlop Co. £5 as damages on every tyre D undersold, D sold two tyres at less than the list price and thereupon the Dunlop Co. Sued him for the breach.
Held: The Dunlop Co. Could not maintain the suit as it was stranger to the contract.
Capacity to Contract
Mohiri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose, (1903)
In this case, a minor mortgaged his house in favour of a money-lender to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000 out of which the mortgagee (the money-lender) paid the minor a sum of Rs. 8,000. Subsequently the minor sued for setting aside the mortgage, stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage.
Held: The mortgage was void and, therefore, it was cancelled. Further the money-lender’s request for the repayment of the amount advanced to the minor as part of the consideration for the mortgage was also not accepted.
Mistake of Law
Solle vs. Butcher, (1950)
Ignorantia juris non excusat, i.e., ignorance of law is no excuse, is a well settled rule of law. 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. Hastie, (1856)
A agreed to sell a cargo of corn supposed at the time of contract to be in transit from Salonica to the United Kingdom. Unknown to the parties, the corn had become fermented and had already been sold by the master of the ship at Tunis.
Held: The agreement was void and the buyer was not liable for the price.
Mistake as to the Identity of the Subject-Matter
Raffles vs. Wichelhaus, (1864)
W agreed to buy from R a cargo of cotton “to arrive ex-peerless from Bombay”. There were two ships of that name sailing from Bombay, one sailing in October and the other in December. W meant the former ship but R meant the latter contract.
Remedies for Breach of Contract
Hadley vs. Baxendale
X’s mill was stopped by the breakdown of a shaft. He delivered the shaft to Y, a common carrier, to be taken to a manufacturer to copy it make a new one. X did not make known to Y that delay would result in loss of profits. By some neglect on the part of Y the delivery of the shaft was delayed in transit beyond a reasonable time (so that the mill was idle for a longer period than otherwise would have been the case had there been no breach of the contract of carriage).
Held: Y was not liable for loss of profits during the period of delay as the circumstances communicated to Y did not show that a delay in the delivery of the shaft would entail loss of profits to the mill.
Alderson, B observed in this case as follows:
“Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both the parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.”
Quasi Contracts
Damodar Mudaliar vs. Secretary of State for India, (1894)
A village was irrigated by a tank. The Government effected certain repairs to the tank for its preservation and had no intention to do so gratuitously for the zamindars. The zamindars enjoyed the benefit thereof.
Held: They were liable to contribute.
Acknowledgements:
Mercantile law by ND Kapoor
Nimita Singh
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Assignment- 2
Note: Date of submission: 1.10.2009
Assignment
1. Describe the essentials of a valid contract with the help of relevant case law and examples.
2. What is quantum meruit? Explain the cases in which the claim of quantum meruit arises.
3. What are the remedies available to a seller in case of breach of contract of sale.
4. Discuss the various kinds of partners in a partnership firm.
5. What are the different modes through which a partnership firm may be dissolved.
6. Analyse the following cases and answer the questions with the help of statutory provisions and decided cases
Case Number 1
A representative from Eureka Forbes visits Andrew on the 1st February 2009. He informs Andrew that his company is prepared to install Aquaguard at a guaranteed price of Rs 5000. Andrew is hesitant and decides to think the matter over. The representative leaves, pointing out that the guaranteed price only remained open till 8th February 2009.
On the following day, Andrew sees an advertisement by Eureka forbes, which offers Aquaguard at a standard price of Rs 4500. He immediately telephones Eureka forbes in order to accept the terms of this advertisement. The company replies that owing to high demand, the advertised offer has been withdrawn.
On 7th February 2009, Andrew telephones Eureka Forbes again. He leaves a message with the answering service in which he accepts the offer of Rs 5000 made by the company representative. He also sends a letter confirming the order that afternoon. Andrew later goes to the pub for a drink where he meets a friend who informs him that he can obtain Aquaguard from another firm for Rs 4000. Andrew rushes home and telephones Eureka Forbes expressing his wish to cancel the order. The secretary, now on duty, points out that she has not yet had an opportunity of listening to the answering service tapes but that she will note down his wishes. Andrew’s letter of the 7th Feb 2009 arrives on the 9th Feb 2009 at Eureka Forbes Premises. The letter is received by the secretary of Eureka Forbes. Whether there is a valid contract between Andrew and Eureka Forbes.
Case Number 2
In Re McArdle 1951, a number of children were entitled to a house on the death of their mother. Whilst the mother was still alive, her son and daughter-in-law lived with her and the daughter-in-law made improvements to the property. The children later promised that they would pay the daughter-in-law for this work, but after her mother-in-law’s death, the children refused to pay. Was the daughter-in-law able to claim this payment?
Case Number 3
D bought tyres from Dunlop Co.and sold them to S a sub dealer, who agreed with D not
to sell below Dunlop’s list pirce and to pay Dunlop Co.Rs 75 as damages on every tyre he undersold. S sold two tyres at less than the list price and thereon Dunlop Co.sued him for the breach. Will Dunlop and Co succeed? Decide with the help of relevant law and cases.
Case Number 4
A contracts with B to build a house for B for RS 3,00,000/- After A has proceeded with the work for sometime and before the work is completed. B repudiates the contract and prevents A from proceeding with the work. What are the remedies available to A?
Assignment
1. Describe the essentials of a valid contract with the help of relevant case law and examples.
2. What is quantum meruit? Explain the cases in which the claim of quantum meruit arises.
3. What are the remedies available to a seller in case of breach of contract of sale.
4. Discuss the various kinds of partners in a partnership firm.
5. What are the different modes through which a partnership firm may be dissolved.
6. Analyse the following cases and answer the questions with the help of statutory provisions and decided cases
Case Number 1
A representative from Eureka Forbes visits Andrew on the 1st February 2009. He informs Andrew that his company is prepared to install Aquaguard at a guaranteed price of Rs 5000. Andrew is hesitant and decides to think the matter over. The representative leaves, pointing out that the guaranteed price only remained open till 8th February 2009.
On the following day, Andrew sees an advertisement by Eureka forbes, which offers Aquaguard at a standard price of Rs 4500. He immediately telephones Eureka forbes in order to accept the terms of this advertisement. The company replies that owing to high demand, the advertised offer has been withdrawn.
On 7th February 2009, Andrew telephones Eureka Forbes again. He leaves a message with the answering service in which he accepts the offer of Rs 5000 made by the company representative. He also sends a letter confirming the order that afternoon. Andrew later goes to the pub for a drink where he meets a friend who informs him that he can obtain Aquaguard from another firm for Rs 4000. Andrew rushes home and telephones Eureka Forbes expressing his wish to cancel the order. The secretary, now on duty, points out that she has not yet had an opportunity of listening to the answering service tapes but that she will note down his wishes. Andrew’s letter of the 7th Feb 2009 arrives on the 9th Feb 2009 at Eureka Forbes Premises. The letter is received by the secretary of Eureka Forbes. Whether there is a valid contract between Andrew and Eureka Forbes.
Case Number 2
In Re McArdle 1951, a number of children were entitled to a house on the death of their mother. Whilst the mother was still alive, her son and daughter-in-law lived with her and the daughter-in-law made improvements to the property. The children later promised that they would pay the daughter-in-law for this work, but after her mother-in-law’s death, the children refused to pay. Was the daughter-in-law able to claim this payment?
Case Number 3
D bought tyres from Dunlop Co.and sold them to S a sub dealer, who agreed with D not
to sell below Dunlop’s list pirce and to pay Dunlop Co.Rs 75 as damages on every tyre he undersold. S sold two tyres at less than the list price and thereon Dunlop Co.sued him for the breach. Will Dunlop and Co succeed? Decide with the help of relevant law and cases.
Case Number 4
A contracts with B to build a house for B for RS 3,00,000/- After A has proceeded with the work for sometime and before the work is completed. B repudiates the contract and prevents A from proceeding with the work. What are the remedies available to A?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tips to improve learning
1. Read the lesson once thoroughly. Close the book, try recalling what you have read.
2. Take small breaks in between studying. A student cannot concentrate for more than 45 minutes at a stretch.
3. Read out loudly (even if it disturbs other people in the house), other noises will not bother you!
4.Prepare point wise notes on flash cards.it is easier for revising.
5.Revise regularly.
6. Teach somebody else a difficult concept, it will be much clearer to you.
2. Take small breaks in between studying. A student cannot concentrate for more than 45 minutes at a stretch.
3. Read out loudly (even if it disturbs other people in the house), other noises will not bother you!
4.Prepare point wise notes on flash cards.it is easier for revising.
5.Revise regularly.
6. Teach somebody else a difficult concept, it will be much clearer to you.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
100% attendance reward
Congragulations! to all the 100% attendance rewardees. You will be receiving your award shortly.
PGDM (A)
Anupa kumari
Karan Lakahaney
PGDM (B)
Pushpender kumar
Sudhanshu kuumar Singh
Sakshi Udanaia
Swati dixit
Anupma kumari
Mukesh kumar
Another category of students is also entitled to get awards are:
Appreciation(99%)
Ankit agarwal
Vikas Sharma
Neeraj Kushwaha
Neetu Singh
Keep it up!
PGDM (A)
Anupa kumari
Karan Lakahaney
PGDM (B)
Pushpender kumar
Sudhanshu kuumar Singh
Sakshi Udanaia
Swati dixit
Anupma kumari
Mukesh kumar
Another category of students is also entitled to get awards are:
Appreciation(99%)
Ankit agarwal
Vikas Sharma
Neeraj Kushwaha
Neetu Singh
Keep it up!
Case studies
The following are some of the case studies for the covered topics of the mid term.
(1) Balfour vs. Balfour, (1919)
A husband promised to pay his wife a household allowance of £ 30 every month. Later the parties separated and the husband failed to pay the amount. The wife sued for the allowance. Held, agreements such as these were outside the realm of contract altogether.
(2)Rose & Frank Co. vs. Crompton Bros., (1925)
There was an agreement between R Company and C Company by means of which the former was appointed as the agent of the latter. One clause in the agreement was: “This agreement is not entered into ….as a formal or legal agreement, and shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the law courts.” Held, there was no binding contract as there was no intention to create legal relationship.
(3) Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893)
A company advertised in several newspapers that a reward of £ 100 would be given to any person who contracted influenza after using the smoke balls of the company according to its printed directions. One Mrs. Carlill used the smoke balls according to the directions of the company but contracted influenza. Held, she could recover the amount as by using the smoke balls she had accepted the offer.
(4)Harris vs. Nickerson (1873)
An auctioneer advertised in a newspaper that a sale of office furniture would be held. A broker came from a distant place to attend that auction, but all the furniture was withdrawn. The broker thereupon sued the auctioneer for his loss of time and expenses. Held, a declaration of intention to do a thing did not create a binding contract with those who acted upon it, so that the broker could not recover.
5. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs. Boots Cash Chemists, (1953)
Goods are sold in a shop under the ‘self-service’ system. Customers select goods in the shop and take them to the cashier for payment of the price. The contract, in this case, is made, not when a customer selects the goods, but when the cashier accepts the offer to buy and receives the price.
6. Lalman vs. Gauri Dutt (1913)
S sent his servant, L, to trace his missing nephew. He then announced that anybody who traced his nephew would be entitled to a certain reward. L traced the boy in ignorance of this announcement. Subsequently when he came to know of the reward, he claimed it. Held, he was not entitled to the award.
7. Harvey vs. Facey, (1893)
Three telegrams were exchanged between Harvey and Facey.
1. “Will you sell us your Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid.” (Harvey to Facey).
2. “Lowest price for Bumber Hall Pen £ 900.” (Facey to Harvey).
3. “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of £ 900 asked by you.” (Harvey to Facey).
Held, there was no concluded contract between Harvey and Facey.
8. Felthouse vs. Bindley, (1862)
F offered to buy his nephew’s horse for £ 30 saying: “If I hear no more about it I shall consider the horse is mine at £ 30.” The nephew did not write to F at all, but he told his auctioneer who was selling his horses not to sell that particular horse because it had been sold to his uncle. The auctioneer inadvertently sold the horse. Held, F had no right of auction against the auctioneer, as the horse had not been sold to F, his offer of £ 30 not having been accepted.
Acknowledegement
Source: Mercantile Law by ND Kapoor, Sultan Chand &Sons
Nimita Singh - PGDM student
(1) Balfour vs. Balfour, (1919)
A husband promised to pay his wife a household allowance of £ 30 every month. Later the parties separated and the husband failed to pay the amount. The wife sued for the allowance. Held, agreements such as these were outside the realm of contract altogether.
(2)Rose & Frank Co. vs. Crompton Bros., (1925)
There was an agreement between R Company and C Company by means of which the former was appointed as the agent of the latter. One clause in the agreement was: “This agreement is not entered into ….as a formal or legal agreement, and shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the law courts.” Held, there was no binding contract as there was no intention to create legal relationship.
(3) Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893)
A company advertised in several newspapers that a reward of £ 100 would be given to any person who contracted influenza after using the smoke balls of the company according to its printed directions. One Mrs. Carlill used the smoke balls according to the directions of the company but contracted influenza. Held, she could recover the amount as by using the smoke balls she had accepted the offer.
(4)Harris vs. Nickerson (1873)
An auctioneer advertised in a newspaper that a sale of office furniture would be held. A broker came from a distant place to attend that auction, but all the furniture was withdrawn. The broker thereupon sued the auctioneer for his loss of time and expenses. Held, a declaration of intention to do a thing did not create a binding contract with those who acted upon it, so that the broker could not recover.
5. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs. Boots Cash Chemists, (1953)
Goods are sold in a shop under the ‘self-service’ system. Customers select goods in the shop and take them to the cashier for payment of the price. The contract, in this case, is made, not when a customer selects the goods, but when the cashier accepts the offer to buy and receives the price.
6. Lalman vs. Gauri Dutt (1913)
S sent his servant, L, to trace his missing nephew. He then announced that anybody who traced his nephew would be entitled to a certain reward. L traced the boy in ignorance of this announcement. Subsequently when he came to know of the reward, he claimed it. Held, he was not entitled to the award.
7. Harvey vs. Facey, (1893)
Three telegrams were exchanged between Harvey and Facey.
1. “Will you sell us your Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid.” (Harvey to Facey).
2. “Lowest price for Bumber Hall Pen £ 900.” (Facey to Harvey).
3. “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of £ 900 asked by you.” (Harvey to Facey).
Held, there was no concluded contract between Harvey and Facey.
8. Felthouse vs. Bindley, (1862)
F offered to buy his nephew’s horse for £ 30 saying: “If I hear no more about it I shall consider the horse is mine at £ 30.” The nephew did not write to F at all, but he told his auctioneer who was selling his horses not to sell that particular horse because it had been sold to his uncle. The auctioneer inadvertently sold the horse. Held, F had no right of auction against the auctioneer, as the horse had not been sold to F, his offer of £ 30 not having been accepted.
Acknowledegement
Source: Mercantile Law by ND Kapoor, Sultan Chand &Sons
Nimita Singh - PGDM student
Syllabus for the mid-term examination
There has been a variation in the number of classes taken in both the sections so a common syllabus for both the sections for the mid term will be on the given topics
Introduction to Law
Agreement and Contract
Essentials of a valid contract - offer and acceptance
Introduction to Law
Agreement and Contract
Essentials of a valid contract - offer and acceptance
Monday, August 3, 2009
Note
During the surprise check it was found that students are not maintaining the class register. The problems given were also not solved. I view this matter as a grave one. It is my final warning to all the students - maintain a separate clas register, make sure the problems given are solved in the class register.
reminder - you reap what you sow.
reminder - you reap what you sow.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Lecture V - Lecture VIII
Indian Contract Act,1872
Defnitions - agreement, contract, Offer
Contract -Agreement + Enforceability at law
An agreement is formed after the acceptance of the offer or proposal.
"All contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contract".
Difference between an agreement and a contract
Essentials of a valid contract
Defnitions - agreement, contract, Offer
Contract -Agreement + Enforceability at law
An agreement is formed after the acceptance of the offer or proposal.
"All contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contract".
Difference between an agreement and a contract
Essentials of a valid contract
Tips for an MBA student - Mr Subash Bijlani,Professor of Practice,University of Maryland
- Emphasis has to be on lifelong and continous learning.
- Society is a dynamic one. It is knowledge oriented, so the student should have an ability to continously educate onself. It is an ability that the company looks for in a student.
- Students should try and find knowledge by oneself - taking real life problems-finding solutions
- Two abilities that the students should focus on -
- to learn to diffrentiate between people
- self leadership - how do you lead yourself
Practical Problems
Note: The following problems shall be solved in the class register.
Which of the following is a contract/agreement?
1. A student taking admission in an institution.
2. Opening an account in the bank.
3. Hiring a car for sight seeing purposes.
4.Selling or buying flats
5.A friend inviting another friend for a movie.
6. Hiring of a facility service provider for the Institute.
Which of the following is a contract/agreement?
1. A student taking admission in an institution.
2. Opening an account in the bank.
3. Hiring a car for sight seeing purposes.
4.Selling or buying flats
5.A friend inviting another friend for a movie.
6. Hiring of a facility service provider for the Institute.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Syllabus
Hindustan Institute of Management
PGDM Trimester III
Subject Title: LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
Number of Credit Hours: 3 (Three)
Course Code:
Course Objective:
The objective of this course is to provide the students with practical legal knowledge of general business law issues and topics to help become more informed, sensitive and effective business leaders.
Unit I (2 L)
Introduction to Law - Salient Features of Constitution of India, Structure of Judiciary and Legislation, Legal terminology
Unit- II (8 L)
Indian Contract 1872
Classification of contract – Essential elements of a valid contract - offer - acceptance - communication and revocation of offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity of parties - consent - free consent - Flaw in consent - Coercion - Undue-influence - Fraud - Misrepresentation - Mistake - legality of objects - Illegal and Immoral agreements and agreements opposed to public policy - Breach of contract - Remedies for breach of contract - Contingent contract, performance of contract - Contracts of guarantee, Indemnity bailment - Agency
Unit III (6 L)
Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Classification of goods, Conditions & Warranties, Passing of Property, Rights of an unpaid seller, Remedies for breach of Contract of Sale of Goods.
Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Definition and Nature of Partnership; Formation of Partnership; Rights, Duties and Liabilities of Partners; Dissolution of Partnership Firm
Unit IV (8 L)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Negotiable Instruments; Parties to a Negotiable Instrument; Presentment of Negotiable Instrument; Negotiation of Negotiable Instrument; Dishonour of a Negotiable Instrument; Discharge of Parties from Liability
Companies Act 1956
Definition, Characteristics and Kinds of Companies, Steps in Formation of Company. Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association. Directors: Appointment, Power, Duties and Liabilities of Directors. Meeting and Resolutions: Types of Meetings.
Unit V (4L)
Brief overview –
Consumer Protection Act 1986
Competition Act 2002
Suggested Readings:
Kuchhal M.C. Business Law, (Vikas)
Tulsian P.C. Business Law (Tata Mc Graw- Hill)
Kapoor N. D. Elements of Mercantile Law, (S.Chand And Sons).
Gulshan S.S., Business Law 1st Ed. 2001, Excel Books
Basu, B.B, Constitution of India
MP Singh, Constitution of India
Taxmann’s (Rohini Goel) Students guide to Corporate Laws
Datey V.S., Students Guide to Corporate Laws, Taxman’s, 2000 Ed.
Maheswari and Maheswari, Company Law
Singh Avtar, Company Law
Saharay H.K., Company Law
Bagrial Ashok K, Company Law
Shah S.M. & Kantawala R.M., Lectures on Company Law
Wadhwa, Companies Act
Puliani Ravi & Puliani Mahesh, Bharat’s Corporate Laws
Majumdar A.K. or Kapoor G.K, Taxman’s Students Guide to Co. Law, 2000
Bare Acts
Newspapers
Times of India,
Hindustan Times
Economic Times
Cases
All India Reporter
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reports
Websites
• www. legalserviceindia.com • www.Supremecourtofindiacaselaw.com
www.indlaw.com • www.lexsite.com
www.india-laws.com • http://www.companylawinfo.com
PGDM Trimester III
Subject Title: LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
Number of Credit Hours: 3 (Three)
Course Code:
Course Objective:
The objective of this course is to provide the students with practical legal knowledge of general business law issues and topics to help become more informed, sensitive and effective business leaders.
Unit I (2 L)
Introduction to Law - Salient Features of Constitution of India, Structure of Judiciary and Legislation, Legal terminology
Unit- II (8 L)
Indian Contract 1872
Classification of contract – Essential elements of a valid contract - offer - acceptance - communication and revocation of offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity of parties - consent - free consent - Flaw in consent - Coercion - Undue-influence - Fraud - Misrepresentation - Mistake - legality of objects - Illegal and Immoral agreements and agreements opposed to public policy - Breach of contract - Remedies for breach of contract - Contingent contract, performance of contract - Contracts of guarantee, Indemnity bailment - Agency
Unit III (6 L)
Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Classification of goods, Conditions & Warranties, Passing of Property, Rights of an unpaid seller, Remedies for breach of Contract of Sale of Goods.
Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Definition and Nature of Partnership; Formation of Partnership; Rights, Duties and Liabilities of Partners; Dissolution of Partnership Firm
Unit IV (8 L)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Negotiable Instruments; Parties to a Negotiable Instrument; Presentment of Negotiable Instrument; Negotiation of Negotiable Instrument; Dishonour of a Negotiable Instrument; Discharge of Parties from Liability
Companies Act 1956
Definition, Characteristics and Kinds of Companies, Steps in Formation of Company. Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association. Directors: Appointment, Power, Duties and Liabilities of Directors. Meeting and Resolutions: Types of Meetings.
Unit V (4L)
Brief overview –
Consumer Protection Act 1986
Competition Act 2002
Suggested Readings:
Kuchhal M.C. Business Law, (Vikas)
Tulsian P.C. Business Law (Tata Mc Graw- Hill)
Kapoor N. D. Elements of Mercantile Law, (S.Chand And Sons).
Gulshan S.S., Business Law 1st Ed. 2001, Excel Books
Basu, B.B, Constitution of India
MP Singh, Constitution of India
Taxmann’s (Rohini Goel) Students guide to Corporate Laws
Datey V.S., Students Guide to Corporate Laws, Taxman’s, 2000 Ed.
Maheswari and Maheswari, Company Law
Singh Avtar, Company Law
Saharay H.K., Company Law
Bagrial Ashok K, Company Law
Shah S.M. & Kantawala R.M., Lectures on Company Law
Wadhwa, Companies Act
Puliani Ravi & Puliani Mahesh, Bharat’s Corporate Laws
Majumdar A.K. or Kapoor G.K, Taxman’s Students Guide to Co. Law, 2000
Bare Acts
Newspapers
Times of India,
Hindustan Times
Economic Times
Cases
All India Reporter
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reports
Websites
• www. legalserviceindia.com • www.Supremecourtofindiacaselaw.com
www.indlaw.com • www.lexsite.com
www.india-laws.com • http://www.companylawinfo.com
Reward for 100% attendance
Every student who achieves 100% attendance in the class from 20.7.2009 to 20.8.2009 will get a reward for their acheivement.
Looking forward to a long list of achievers!!!
Looking forward to a long list of achievers!!!
Lectur IV - 20.7.2009
Forming of an Act -Bill -Tabling in the Parliament - Debate -Passing of the Bill in both the houses - Sent for assent to the President - Bill becomes an Act on the assent of the President
Act divided into chapters,sections subsections etc
Date of assigment extended to 21.7.2009
Act divided into chapters,sections subsections etc
Date of assigment extended to 21.7.2009
Lecture III
Introduction to the concept of Law - Various sources of Law - Custom, Legislation, Precedents, Opininon of experts - Constitution of India - Fundamental rights - Directive Principles of State policy - Various Kinds of Law -Procedural Laws, General Laws etc
Assignment 1 - What are the fundamental rights and directive principles of State
Policy enshrined in the Constitution of India?
Submision date: 20.7.2009
Assignment 1 - What are the fundamental rights and directive principles of State
Policy enshrined in the Constitution of India?
Submision date: 20.7.2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Lecture I -15/7/2009, Lecture II - 16/ 7/2009
General introduction to law.
What is Law? - Law is a dynamic concept - It keeps changing with times - Integral part of our everyday lives - Nobody is above law -Even the person who has made the law is bound by it
Two ppts regarding the topic can be found at the common e-mail id.
What is Law? - Law is a dynamic concept - It keeps changing with times - Integral part of our everyday lives - Nobody is above law -Even the person who has made the law is bound by it
Two ppts regarding the topic can be found at the common e-mail id.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
guidelines for students
Guidelines for students
1. Students are required to be in the class on time.
2. No student will be allowed inside the class after 5 minutes of starting the lecture.
3. Students are required to read the newspaper daily and keep themselves updated of the current affairs.
4. Students shall come well groomed to the class.
5. Students are required to go through the topic or case before the lecture.
6. Students shall maintain two registers. One for the assignments and the other for the class lecture.
7. The assignments wil be posted on the blog with the date of submission. Assignment shall not be accepted after the submission date.
8. Each student will have to prepare three presentations. Two of them will be individual presentations and the third one will be a group presentation. The topics and the guidelines for the presentation will be given in due course.
9. Students are expected to maintain discipline in the classroom.
10. Teacher's meeting time - Before 9.30 am in the morning, After 4.00 pm in the evening
11. Meeting during lunchtime is strictly prohibited.
1. Students are required to be in the class on time.
2. No student will be allowed inside the class after 5 minutes of starting the lecture.
3. Students are required to read the newspaper daily and keep themselves updated of the current affairs.
4. Students shall come well groomed to the class.
5. Students are required to go through the topic or case before the lecture.
6. Students shall maintain two registers. One for the assignments and the other for the class lecture.
7. The assignments wil be posted on the blog with the date of submission. Assignment shall not be accepted after the submission date.
8. Each student will have to prepare three presentations. Two of them will be individual presentations and the third one will be a group presentation. The topics and the guidelines for the presentation will be given in due course.
9. Students are expected to maintain discipline in the classroom.
10. Teacher's meeting time - Before 9.30 am in the morning, After 4.00 pm in the evening
11. Meeting during lunchtime is strictly prohibited.
Welcome
Welcome All! to this blog on business law. On this blog you will find information related to various aspects of business law. It will be an interesting read for all the students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)