1.

Radha invited her ten close friends to celebrate her 25th birthday party on 1st
January, 2023 at 7.30 P.M. at a well-known "Hi-Fi Restaurant" at Tonk Road
Jaipur.
All invited friends accepted the invitation and promised to attend the said party.
On request of the hotel manager, Radha deposited ₹ 5,000/- as non-refundable
security for the said party.
On the scheduled date and time, three among ten invited friends did not turn up
for the birthday party and did not convey any prior communication to her.
Radha, enraged with the behaviour of the three friends, wanted to sue them for
loss incurred in the said party. Advise as per the provisions of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.
Would your answer differ if the said party had been a "Contributory 2023 New
Year celebration Party" organized by Radha?
Ans.
According to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, all agreements
are not contracts.
Domestic, social & political agreements are not contracts as they are not
backed by the intention to create legal relations and
hence are not enforceable by law.

In the given case, Radha invited her friends to her birthday party, in a hotel, for
which she deposited non-refundable security, but few of her friends did not turn
up for the party and she wishes to sue them.

Applying the above stated provisions it is evident that the given case is of a
social agreement which was made without the intention of creating legal
relations and as merely an agreement and not a contract.
Thus Radha cannot sue her friends for the loss, resulting from their not
attending her birthday party, despite having accepted the invitation.
 The answer would still remain the same if the party had been a
contributory New Year celebration party, since it would still remain a social
agreement not intended to be made with the intent of creating legal relations and
would not be enforceable by law.

2. A shop-keeper displayed a pair of dress in the show-room and a price tag of

₹2,000 was attached to the dress.
Ms. Lovely, looked at the tag and rushed to the cash counter.
Then she asked the shop-keeper to receive the payment and pack up the dress.
The shop-keeper refused to hand-over the dress to Ms. Lovely in consideration
of the price stated in the price tag attached to the dress.
Ms. Lovely seeks your advice whether she can sue the shop-keeper for the
above cause under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Ans.
An offer must be distinguished from an invitation to make an offer.
An offer is the final expression of willingness by the offeror to be bound by
the offer if the offeree chooses to accept it.
On the other hand, an invitation to make an offer is made with the intention
to negotiate business on the terms specified broadly in the invitation, with
any person who comes forward with an offer.
Thus the offer is made with the intention of procuring acceptance whereas
invitation to make an offer is made to procure offers.
The acceptance of an invitation to an offer does not result in the formation
of contract and only an offer emerges in the process of negotiation.
A price tag attached to an article displayed for sale does not constitute an offer.
It is merely an invitation to offer.
 In the given case the dress displayed in the show-room with the price-tag
constitutes an invitation to make an offer.
The act of Ms. Lovely of picking up the dress and producing at cash counter
for payment at the price mentioned in the price tag amounts to an offer.
The shop-keeper is not bound to accept the offer.
Thus the shopkeeper is not bound to sell the dress as no contract exists
between to sell the dress as no contract exists between Ms. Lovely and the
shop-keeper and hence she cannot sue the shop-keeper.

3. Mr. R. a French ambassador, deputed in New Delhi, contracts to but an

expensive perfume worth ₹60,000 from Mr. M, a perfume dealer.
Mr. M. agrees to supply the same without taking any advance payment
assuming that he will be surely paid. After delivery of perfume, Mr. R, refuses
to pay. Advise Mr. M about the remedies that can be sought by him under the
Indian Contract Act?

Ans.
According to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, foreign
sovereigns & Diplomats are expressly declared as disqualified by law to
enter into contracts.
Since they enjoy immunity & cannot be generally sued in Indian Courts,
they are ordinarily considered as incompetent to contract.
They can be sued only if they voluntarily submit themselves to the court or
if the approval of Central Government is obtained.

In the given case Mr. M. has entered into a contract with Mr. R. a French
ambassador and has supplied goods worth ₹60,000 after which the diplomat
refuses to pay.
 Applying the above stated provisions, it is evident that Mr. M, cannot sue Mr.
R, a foreign diplomat as he is disqualified by law & therefore incompetent
to contract.
The contract is void ab initio & therefore neither restitution, nor compensation
can be granted to Mr. M.

4. Mr. Y given loan to Mr. G of INR 30,00,000. Mr. G defaulted the loan on due
date and debt became time barred. After the time barred debt, Mr. G agreed to
settle the full amount to Mr. Y. Whether acceptance of time barred debt Contract
is enforceable in law?

Ans.
According to the provisions of section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
a promise to pay a time-barred debt is generally not enforceable, since it is
without consideration.
However if the following conditions are fulfilled the same shall be validly
enforceable-
• Such a promise is made by the debtor in writing
• In respect of a debt which has become time barred by law of limitations
&
• The promise is signed by the debtor or his authorized agent.

In the given case Mr. G agrees to settle the amount of the time barred debt of
Rs. 30,00,000, owed by him to Mr. Y

Applying the above stated provisions it can be concluded that if the promise to
pay the time barred debt by Mr. G. is not in writing and is not signed by him or
his duly authorized agent, the same cannot be enforced by Mr. Y.