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.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)