Thursday, November 8, 2018




Global College of Law
Ghaziabad UP

Breach of Contract and Remedies : Section 73, Section 74 and Section 75 of Indian Contract Act 1872



// Rescinding a contract is a type of anticipatory breach of contract //

https://www.findlawimages.com/etc/designs/default/0.gif

In a perfect world, agreements would be entered into, both sides would benefit and be pleased with the outcome, and no disputes would arise. But in the real world of business, delays happen, financial problems can crop up, and other unexpected events can occur to hinder or even prevent a successful contract from being carried out. The following is a discussion of the legal concept of "breach of contract" and an overview of your options should such a breach occur.



What is a Breach of Contract?



A business contract creates certain obligations that are to be fulfilled by the parties who entered into the agreement. Legally, one party's failure to fulfill any of its contractual obligations is known as a "breach" of the contract. Depending on the specifics, a breach can occur when a party fails to perform on time, does not perform in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or does not perform at all. Accordingly, a breach of contract will usually be categorized as either "material" or "immaterial" for purposes of determining the appropriate legal solution or "remedy" for the breach.



Breach of Contract: An Example



Let's assume that R. Runner contracts with Acme Anvils for the purchase of some of its products, for delivery by the following Monday evening. If Acme delivers the Anvils to Runner on the following Tuesday morning, such a breach of the contract would likely be deemed immaterial, and R. Runner would likely not be entitled to money damages (unless he could show that he was somehow damaged by the late delivery).



However, assume now that the contract stated clearly and explicitly that "time is of the essence" and the anvils MUST be delivered on Monday. If Acme delivers after Monday, its breach of contract would likely be deemed "material," and R. Runner's damages would be presumed, making Acme's liability for the breach more severe, and likely relieving Runner of the duty to pay for the anvils under the contract.







What Happens After a Contract is Breached?



When a breach of contract occurs or is alleged, one or both of the parties may wish to have the contract enforced on its terms, or may try to recover for any financial harm caused by the alleged breach.

If a dispute over a contract arises and informal attempts at resolution fail, the most common next step is a lawsuit. If the amount at issue is below a certain dollar figure (usually $3,000 to $7,500 depending on the state), the parties may be able to resolve the issue in small claims court.

Courts and formal lawsuits are not the only option for people and businesses involved in contract disputes. The parties can agree to have a mediator review a contract dispute, or may agree to binding arbitration of a contract dispute. These out-of-court options are two methods of "alternative dispute resolution."



Remedies for a Breach of Contract:



When an individual or business breaches a contract, the other party to the agreement is entitled to relief (or a "remedy") under the law. The main remedies for a breach of contract are:



1.      Damages,

2.      Specific Performance, or

3.      Cancellation and Restitution



Damages



The payment of damages -- payment in one form or another -- is the most common remedy for a breach of contract. There are many kinds of damages, including the following:

1.      Compensatory damages aim to put the non-breaching party in the position that they had been if the breach had not occurred.

2.      Punitive damages are payments that the breaching party must make, above and beyond the point that would fully compensate the non-breaching party. Punitive damages are meant to punish a wrongful party for particularly wrongful acts, and are rarely awarded in the business contracts setting.

3.      Nominal damages are token damages awarded when a breach occurred, but no actual money loss to the non-breaching party was proven.

4.      Liquidated damages are specific damages that were previously identified by the parties in the contract itself, in the event that the contract is breached. Liquidated damages should be a reasonable estimate of actual damages that might result from a breach.

Specific Performance

If damages are inadequate as a legal remedy, the non-breaching party may seek an alternative remedy called specific performance. Specific performance is best described as the breaching party's court-ordered performance of duty under the contract. Specific performance may be used as a remedy for breach of contract if the subject matter of the agreement is rare or unique, and damages would not suffice to place the non-breaching party in as good a position as they would have been had the breach not occurred.



Cancellation and Restitution



A non-breaching party may cancel the contract and sue for restitution if the non-breaching party has given a benefit to the breaching party. "Restitution" as a contract remedy means that the non-breaching party is put back in the position it was in prior to the breach, while "cancellation" of the contract voids the contract and relieves all parties of any obligation under the agreement.





Get Legal Help with Your Breach of Contract Dispute



If you've been named in a breach of contract lawsuit or believe another party has failed to honor its contractual obligations to your company, quite a bit may be at stake. Before deciding on how to proceed, it's advisable to first consult with an experienced small business attorney near you to discuss your options.



…………………………………….@@@@@@@@@@@@.............................................



                     

GLOBAL COLLEGE OF LAW

GHAZIABAD UP

Quasi Contract: Section 68 to Section 72 of Indian Contract Act 1872.

“No man must grow rich out of another persons’ loss.”

Can there be a contact without offer, acceptance, consideration etc? Well, yes there can be such a contract based on social responsibility. We call such contracts quasi contract. Let us take a look.

Quasi Contract

The word ‘Quasi’ means pseudo. Hence, a Quasi contract is a pseudo-contract. When we talk about a valid contact we expect it to have certain elements like offer and acceptance, consideration, the capacity to contract, and free will. But there are other types of contracts as well.

There are cases where the law implies a promise and imposes obligations on one party while conferring rights to the other even when the basic elements of a contract are not present. These promises are not legal contracts, but the Court recognizes them as relations resembling a contract and enforces them like a contract. These promises/ relations are Quasi contracts. These obligations can also arise due to different social relationships which we will look at in this article.

The core principles behind a Quasi Contract are justice, equity and good conscience. It is based on the maxim: Undue Enrichment: “No man must grow rich out of another persons’ loss.”

Let’s look at an example of a Quasi contract: Peter and Oliver enter a contract under which Peter agrees to deliver a basket of fruits at Oliver’s residence and Oliver promises to pay Rs 1,500 after consuming all the fruits. However, Peter erroneously delivers a basket of fruits at John’s residence instead of Oliver’s. When John gets home he assumes that the fruit basket is a birthday gift and consumes them.

Although there is no contract between Peter and John, the Court treats this as a Quasi-contract and orders John to either return the basket of fruits or pay Peter.

Features of a Quasi Contract

1.    It is usually a right to money and is generally (not always) to a liquated sum of money

2.    The right is not an outcome of an agreement but is imposed by law.

3.    The right is not available against everyone in the world but only against a specific person(s). Hence it resembles a contractual right.

Sections 68 – 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 detail five circumstances under which a Quasi contract comes to exist. Remember, there is no real contract between the parties and the law imposes the contractual liability due to the peculiar circumstances.

Quasi Contract

Source: Pixabay

Section 68 – Necessaries Supplied to Persons Incapable of Contracting

Imagine a person incapable of entering into a contract like a lunatic or a minor. If a person supplies necessaries suited to the condition in life of such a person, then he can get reimbursement from the property of the incapable person.

John is a lunatic. Peter supplies John with certain necessaries suited to his condition in life. However, John does not have the money or sanity and fails to pay Peter. This is termed as a Quasi contract and Peter is entitled to reimbursement from John’s property.

However, to establish his claim, Peter needs to prove two things:

1.    John is a lunatic

2.    The goods supplied were necessary for John at the time they were sold/ delivered.

Section 69 – Payment by an Interested Person

If a person pays the money on someone else’s behalf which the other person is bound by law to pay, then he is entitled to reimbursement by the other person.

Peter is a zamindar. He has leased his land to John, a farmer. However, Peter fails to pay the revenue due to the government. After sending notices and not receiving the payment, the government releases an advertisement for sale of the land (which is leased to John). According to the Revenue law, once the land is sold, John’s lease agreement is annulled.

John does not want to let go of the land since he has worked hard on the land and it has started yielding good produce. In order to prevent the sale, John pays the government the amount due from Peter. In this scenario, Peter is obligated to repay the said amount to John.

Section 70 – Obligation of Person enjoying the benefits of a Non-Gratuitous Act

Imagine a person lawfully doing something or delivering something to someone without the intention of doing so gratuitously and the other person enjoying the benefits of the act done or goods delivered. In such a case, the other person is liable to pay compensation to the former for the act, or goods received. This compensation can be in money or the other person can, if possible, restore the thing done or delivered.

However, the plaintiff must prove that:

·         The act that is done or thing delivered was lawful

·         He did not do so gratuitously

·         The other person enjoyed the benefits

Section 71 – Responsibility of Finder of Goods

If a person finds goods that belong to someone else and takes them into his custody, then he has to adhere to the following responsibilities:

·         Take care of the goods as a person of regular prudence

·         No right to appropriate the goods

·         Restore the goods to the owner (if found)

Peter owns a flower shop. Olivia visits him to buy a bouquet but forgets her purse in the shop. Unfortunately, there are no documents in the purse to help ascertain her identity. Peter leaves the purse on the checkout counter assuming that she would return to take it.

John, an assistant at Peter’s shop finds the purse lying on the counter and puts it in a drawer without informing Peter. He finished his shift and goes home. When Olivia returns looking for her purse, Peter can’t find it. He is liable for compensation since he did not take care of the purse which any prudent man would have done.

Section 72 – Money paid by Mistake or Under Coercion

If a person receives money or goods by mistake or under coercion, then he is liable to repay or return it.

Let us see an example. Peter misunderstands the terms of the lease and pays municipal tax erroneously. After he realizes his mistake, he approached the municipal authorities for a reimbursement. He is entitled to be reimbursed since he had paid the money by mistake.

Similarly, money paid by coercion which includes oppression, extortion or any such means, is recoverable.

Solved Question for You

Q: Peter and Oliver enter a contract under which Peter agrees to deliver a basket of fruits at Oliver’s residence and Oliver promises to pay Rs 1,500 after consuming all the fruits. However, Peter erroneously delivers a basket of fruits at John’s residence instead of Oliver’s. When John gets home he assumes that the fruit basket is a birthday gift and consumes them. Does John have to pay for the goods?

Ans: Yes, John has to pay for the fruit basket. Although there is no contract between Peter and John, the Court treats this as a Quasi contract and orders John to either return the basket of fruits or pay Peter.

Related Topics


Classes



GLOBAL COLLEGE OF LAW

GHAZIABAD

           

IMPORTANT LEGAL TERMS- FOR ALL LAW STUDENTS :
// for quiz to be held on the law day calibrations in college --inter college quiz//


Included in the list below are definitions of some of the legal words and phrases you will need to know as law students, lawyers, and paralegals. The list is not exhaustive; consult your law dictionary for terms you do not find. Included here are terms not ordinarily used in lay language, terms whose meanings differ from their lay meanings, and "law Latin" terms.
 

Action: Shorthand for "cause of action"; for example, a court action to obtain relief, a judicial remedy to enforce or protect a right, or a proceeding by a plaintiff against a defendant to enforce an obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.

Acts non facitreum, nisi means sit rear: An act does not make one guilty. Unless he has a guilty mind. (For crime, there must be both act and evil intent.)

Adhesion contract: A contract drafted by the stronger party, then presented for acceptance to the weaker party, who has no power to modify its terms.

Ad item: (Latin: For the suit) A "guardian ad listen" is a guardian appointed to represent a person who is incapable of acting on his own behalf.

Advance sheets, advance pamphlets: Paperback publications printed and distributed as soon as possible after a judicial decision, in order that the information be available before it appears in a bound volume. (Slip laws are similar publications of acts passed by a legislative body.)

Affirmative defense: A defense which does more than deny the plain tiffs allegations; it also brings forth new allegations. Aforethought: Arrived at beforehand; a premeditated. Allegation: A statement that a party to a lawsuit intends to prove. Amicus curiae: (Latin: A friend of the court) One who interposes in a legal action.

Appellant: The party who appeals to a higher court from the judgment against himself in a lower court, sometimes called "petitioner." appellee: The party against whom a case is appealed from a lower court to a higher court, sometimes called "respondent." assumpsit’s: A common law action to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract.

Attractive nuisance: A condition on one's premises that is dangerous to children and yet so alluring to them that they may enter.

Bad faith: The opposite of "bona fide" (in good faith): motivated by ulterior motives or by furtive intent.

Beyond a reasonable doubt: The proof required of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings.

Breach: Violation of a duty; the breaking of an obligation. Burden of evidence; the duty of one party to produce evidence to meet or present a prima facie case.

Burden of proof: The duty to establish in the trial the truth of a proposition or issue by the amount of evidence required.

Case: A controversy to be decided in a court of justice. case law: The law set forth in the decisions of appellate courts, that is, in cases that have been decided.

Case in point: A previously decided case that is similar in important respects to the one now being decided.

Case system: Analysis of actual cases that have been decided, the method used in many law school courses to teach law students.

cause sine qua non: (Latin: cause without which nothing,) The determining cause, without which a result would not have occurred. cause: An action or suit; sometimes used synonymously with "case." caveat: (Latin: Let him beware,) Used in phrases like "caveat emptor," (let the buyer beware).

Certiorari: Literally, to be made certain? a writ of review or inquiry by an appellate court re-examining an action of an inferior tribunal or to enable the appellate court to obtain further information in a pending cause.

Change of venue: The removal of a suit for trial from one county to another.

Charged with crime: Accused of a crime, either formally or informally.

Chattels: Movable property, in contrast to real estate.

Chose: From Old French: a thing. An item of personal property, a chattel.

Civil action: An action to enforce a civil right, as distinguished from a criminal action.

Class action: An action brought on behalf of a class of persons by one or more nominal plaintiffs.

Clean hands doctrine: The principle by which the court of equity requires that one who comes to it for relief must not be guilty of wrongful conduct.

Clear and convincing evidence: A degree of proof higher than that of preponderance of the evidence and lower than that of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Color: Mere semblance of a legal right.

Common law: Legal rules, principles, and usage that rest upon court decisions rather than upon statutes or other written declarations.

Condition precedent: A condition that must occur before something else comes into effect.

Contract: (Williston) An agreement upon sufficient consideration to do or refrain from doing a particular lawful thing.

Conversion: A wrongful act of dominion over another's property.

Convict: (verb) To find a person guilty of the crime charged.

Court of last resort: The highest court to which a case may be taken, from which no appeal can be made.

Criterion: The test on which a judgment or a decision is based.

Damage: Harm resulting from illegal invasion of a legal right.

Damages: Compensation imposed by the law to one who has suffered harm due to another's wrongdoing.

Decision: The conclusion reached by a court in adjudication of a case, or the decision reached by arbitration; sometimes synonymous with judgment.

Declaratory judgment: A decision stating the rights and duties of the parties, but involving no relief as a result.

De facto: (Latin: from the fact) In fact or reality, as contrasted with de jure, by right or by law, defamation: Libel or slander.

Degree of care: A standard, testing conduct to decide whether the conduct is negligent.

Degree of proof: The amount of evidence required in action to establish the truth of an allegation.

de minimis non curatlex: (Latin; The law is not concerned with trifles.)

Demurrer: A statement that even if the facts as stated are true, their legal consequences do not require that the action proceed further.

Detriment: (in contract law) some forbearance on the part of one party, as consideration for the contract.

Devise: A testamentary gift of real estate.

Doctrine: A rule or principle of law developed by court decisions.

due care: The care that a person of ordinary prudence would take in similar circumstances.

Due process of law: A course of legal proceedings according to the rule of justice established to enforce and protect private rights.

Earnest money: A payment of part of the purchase price to bind the contract.

ejusdem generic: (Latin: of the same kind.)

Embezzlement:                The fraudulent appropriation of property or money entrusted to one person by another.

Encumbrance: A hindrance or impediment that burdens or obstructs the use of land.

Entirety: The whole as distinguished from a part, as used to refer to the joint estate of spouses.

Equal protection: Generally refers to the guaranty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution that all persons should enjoy the same protection of the law.

Equity: A principle which provides justice when ordinary law may be inadequate.

Escheat: The reversion or forfeiture of property to the government because persons who have a legal claim to it are absent.

Establish: In evidence, to settle a disputed or doubtful fact.

E stop: (From Old French: to stop up.) To bar, preclude, prohibit.

Except: (verb) to object; to take exception to a court order or ruling.

Facial: Pertaining to the language on the face of a document, pleading, statute, or writ.

For cause: For legal cause, as in the challenge of a juror.

Four corners: The entire face of a document; thus, the construction of a document itself, as a whole.

Frivolous: So unmeritorious as to require no argument to convince the court of this fact.

Fungible goods: Goods of a kind in which all units are identical.

Fundamental error: In appellate practice, an error so material as to render a judgment void.

Garnish: To warn, summon, or notify.

Good cause: Substantial legal reason.

Good faith: Sincere motivation or behavior lacking fraud or deceit.

Guardian: One entrusted by law with the control and custody of another person or estate.

Guilty mind: Criminal intent (Latin: mensrea.) harmless error: In appellate practice, error committed during the trial below, but not prejudicial to the rights of the party assigning it, and because of which, therefore, the court will not reverse the judgment below.

Hostile possession: Possession of land under a claim of exclusive right. hypothetical fact situation: A fictional legal problem, postulated by law professors, in order to sharpen their students' analytical skills.

Id.: Abbreviation of "idem," (Latin: the same.)

i.e.: Abbreviation of "id est.," (Latin: that is.)

In absentia: (Latin: In [someone's] absence,)

In banco: (Latin: On the bench); that is, when all judges are sitting.

Inferior: With less legal power, subordinate.

Injure: (Latin: in law,)

Liguria: (Latin: a wrong)] a violation of a legal right.

In personal: (Latin: involving the person,)

In rem: (Latin: involving the matter or thing,)

Inter alia: (Latin: among others,)

In toto: (Latin: in total)] altogether, wholly.

Ipso facto: (Latin: by that fact)

Lessee: One who has leased property from another; tenant.

lesser: One who has leased property to another; landlord.

lax talionis: The law of retaliation.

Malfeasance: Legal misconduct; an act that is legally wrong.

Material (adjective): Important, of the essence.

Matter: Those facts that constitute the entire ground or a part of the ground for an action or a defense.

Misfeasance: The doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner.

Moiety: A part of something. (From Old French: moiete; half,)

Moot question: (1) an academic question; (2) a question which has lost significance because it has already been decided, or for other reasons.

Mortgagee: One to whom a mortgage is made.

Mortgagor. One who takes out a mortgage on his property?

Natural person: A real person, in contrast to a corporation.

Negligence per se: (Latin: negligence in itself?] negligence as defined by the law.

Novo contendere: (Latin: I do not wish to contend.)

Nonfeasance: The failure to act, when action is legally required.

n.o.v.: Abbreviation of Latin: "non obstinate veredicto," notwithstanding the verdict

Notorious possession: Possession of real property openly.

Nudum pactum: (Latin: a bare pact)] thus a promise lacking consideration.

Nullity: Something that has no legal effect.

Parole: Oral, as contrasted to "in writing."

Patent ambiguity: Obvious upon ordinary inspection; contrasts with "latent ambiguity."

Per curiam: (Latin: by the court)] as a whole.

Person: Either an individual or an organization, e.g., a corporation.

Perspires: (Latin: by class); distribution according to the share a deceased ancestor would have taken.

Plaintiff: The party bringing an action.

Precatory words: Words expressing desire rather than command.

Prejudicial: Detrimental to one party in a dispute.

Preponderance of evidence: The greater weight and value of the evidence adduced.

Presumption: An assumption about the existence of a fact; a presumption may be either rebuttable or irrefutable (conclusive).

Prima facie case: A cause of action sufficiently established to justify a favorable verdict if the other party to the action does not rebut the evidence.

Probable cause: Reasonable cause.

Proximate cause: that event or occurrence which produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.

Punitive damages: Damages beyond compensatory damages, imposed to punish the defendant for his act.

Quantum meruit: (Latin: As much as it is worth)] the amount deserved.

Question of fact: A question for the jury to decide, upon conflicting evidence.

Question of law: A question about the law affecting the case, for the judge to decide.

Recovery: The amount a claimant receives as a result of a judgment.

Remedy: The means of enforcing a legal right or redressing a legal injury.

Res: (Latin: thing)] matter.

Res ipsa loquitur: (Latin: The thing speaks for itself,)

Res judicata: (Latin: The thing having been adjudicated.) The earlier judgment thus bars a second action.

Respondeat superior: (Latin: The superior is responsible,) the doctrine that imposes liability upon an employer for the acts of his employees in the course of their employment.

Rule: A statement of law that will henceforth act as precedent; a principle established by authority.

Satisfaction: Performance of the terms of an agreement; discharge of an obligation.

Scienter: (Latin: knowingly.) Often means defendant's "guilty knowledge."

Seasonable: Within the agreed time or at the agreed time. If no time is stipulated, a "reasonable" time.

Seis in: Possession coupled with the right of possession.

Strict construction: Narrow or literal construction of language.

Sui generis: (Latin; of its own kind)-, thus the only one of its kind.

Tort: A wrong, for which a civil action is a remedy, outside of contract law.

Tortfeasor: One who commits a tort; a wrongdoer.

Vicarious liability: The imposition of liability upon one person for the acts of another.

GLOBAL COLLEGE OF LAW

GHAZIABAD

Top 10 Doctrines Every Law Student Should Know: 

1.Doctrine Of Basic Structure

The ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ was propounded by the Indian Judiciary in Kesavananda Bharati v. State Of Kerala to put a limitation on the amending powers of the Parliament so that the ‘basic structure of the constitution of India’ cannot be amended in exercise of its ‘constituent power’ under the Constitution. In this case court said ” the basic structure may be said to consist of the following features:”

1.      Supremacy of the constitution

2.      Republican and Democracy form of Government

3.      Secular character of the constitution

4.      Separation of powers between the Legislature, the executive,and the judiciary

5.      Federal character of the constitution.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

The power to amend the Constitution of India is in the hands of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution, but parliament can not destroy the basic structure of The Constitution while using this power.

2. Doctrine Of Judicial Review

Judicial review is the authority of the courts to declare laws or actions of government officials unconstitutional. It is the ability of the Court to interpret laws and executive actions in the light of the Constitution. If such law is found to be violative to the provisions of The Constitution of India, or the actions taken are beyond the powers granted by the Constitution, it is liable to struck down by the Court as void under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/



3. Doctrine Of Pith And Substance

According to the doctrine of Pith and Substance, where the question arises of determining whether a particular law relates to a particular subject matter mentioned in one List or another, the court looks to the substance of the matter. If the substance falls within Union List, then the incidental encroachment by the law on the State List does not make it invalid.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

4. Doctrine Of Colourable Legislation

The doctrine of colourable legislation is based upon the maxim that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly too. It becomes applicable when a legislature seeks to do something in an indirect manner what it cannot do directly. It refers to the question of competence of the legislature concerned to enact a particular law. The Doctrine was applied by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh. In this case the court held that The Bihar Land Reforms Act was invalid.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

5. Doctrine Of Natural Justice

The Doctrine of Natural Justice consist two basic principle:

1.     Nemo Judex In Causa Sua it means that a man should not be the judge in his own cause. it is also known as rule against bias

2.     Audi Alteram Partem it means hear the other side. It says no person shall be condemned without being heard.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

6. Doctrine Of Utmost Good Faith

The Doctrine of Utmost good faith is applicable in contracts. It says the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It put obligations on the parties to disclose all material facts and should not make any representation. The duty to disclosure of facts is on both sides.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

7. Doctrine Of Severability

The doctrine of severability is a guardian of fundamental rights incorporated under Part III of The Constitution of India. If any of the provisions in an act or statue is contrary to fundamental rights then only that provision would consider being void and it is not the whole act that becomes void.

In case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.c. 27 where section 14 of prevention detention act was found out to be in violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India. It was held by the Supreme court of India that it is section 14 of the act which is to be struck down not the act as a whole.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

8. Doctrine Of Estoppel

The doctrine of estoppel prohibits a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself. According to this doctrine a person shall not be allowed to say one thing at one time and the opposite of it at another time.  He cannot blow both hot and cold at the same time. The doctrine of estoppel in India is a rule of evidence incorporated under Section 115 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

9. Doctrine Of Privity

The Doctrine of privity provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract. It says that only parties to contracts shall be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages as such. In simple words a third party neither acquires a right nor any liabilities under such contract.

https://www.lawordo.com/https://www.lawordo.com/

10. Doctrine Of Res Judicata

The doctrine means “one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute”. It is governed by the Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which provides that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. It bars the trial of suit on an issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has already been adjudicated upon in previous suit.

https://www.lawordo.com/