You are on page 1of 23

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,

PUNJAB, PATIALA

Trade Ethics And Illegal Contracts

B.A L.L.B ( Hons) 2nd Semester

Submitted to- Submitted by-

Ms Sangeeta Taak Ankita Mittal 427

Assistant Professor of Law Debarati Dey 429

RGNUL Prakhar Deep 437

Anshul Gupta 439

Rajiv Gandhi National University Of Law Page 1


Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CERTIFICATE

This project is purely based on the bonafide research work carried out
under the guidance and supervision of Ms. Sangeeta Taak and the same has not been
submitted anywhere for any purposes whatsoever.
Ankita Mittal
Debarati Dey
Prakhar Deep
Anshul Gupta

2
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We take this opportunity to express our humble gratitude and personal regards to Ms.
Sangeeta Taak for inspiring us and guiding us during the course of this project work. We also
extend our sincere thanks to our parents and friends for the inspiration and guidance given to
us from time to time during the progress of this project work. And we also want to extend our
regards to the library staff of our university as without their help this project was not possible.
Ankita Mittal
Debarati Dey
Prakhar Deep
Anshul Gupta

3
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................4
Contents......................................................................................................................................4
TABLE OF CASES....................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 1...............................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................7
Contracts with an Illegal Purpose ..........................................................................................8
Contracts Made Illegal by Operation of Law ........................................................................8
CHAPTER 2...............................................................................................................................9
GAMBLING CONTRACT........................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 3.............................................................................................................................11
SECURITIES............................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 4.............................................................................................................................12
TRADE.....................................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER 5.............................................................................................................................15
SEVERANCE...........................................................................................................................15
CHAPTER 6.............................................................................................................................16
IMMORAL...............................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 7.............................................................................................................................17
CONTRACTS PROMOTING SEXUAL IMMORALITY......................................................17
CHAPTER 8.............................................................................................................................18
WAGERING AGREEMENT...................................................................................................18
Prize Money in Lottery Tickets............................................................................................18
Speculative Transactions......................................................................................................19
Teji Mandi Transactions.......................................................................................................20
CHAPTER 10...........................................................................................................................22
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................22

4
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................23

5
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

TABLE OF CASES
1. Appleton v Campbell
2. Armhouse Le Ltd v Chappell
3. Bai Vijli v Nansa Nagar
4. Brogden v Marriot
5. Buddulal v Shrikisan
6. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
7. Carney v Herbert
8. Choga Lal v Piyari
9. Choga Lal v Piyari
10. Diggle v Higgs
11. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd.
12. Gherulal Parakh v Mohadeodas
13. Kong Yee Lone & Co. v Lowjee Nanjee,
14. Lilley v Rankin
15. Napier v National Business Agency
16. Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt
17. Northwestern Salt Co. Ltd. V Electrolytic Alkali Co. Ltd.

18. Pearce v Brooks


19. Petrofina (Great Britian) Ltd v Martin
20. Shekhachand Jain v Ramnarayan
21. Subhash Kumar Manwani v State of M.P
22. Tinsley v Milligan
23. Will v William Hill Ltd.

6
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

As a general principle it can be said that the courts will not enforce contracts which
are tainted with illegality. There are two basic questions to consider:

a. What will constitute an illegal contract; and

b. What will be the effect of that illegality?

In respect to the second question: will the illegality operate as a defence to a


contractual claim or a claim in restitution to recover money paid or other benefit conferred
under the contract?

The notion of illegality covers a wide spectrum of factors, which have been said at
one time or another to deprive contracts of legal force. The factors have little in common
other than that they are for the most part within the compass of the category of public policy
where the public interest prevails over whatever may be the intentions of the parties. Since
the general public interest is the predominant concern, illegality is an exception to the normal
rules on drafting claims and defences. The court is not obliged to wait for one or the other
party to raise the matter, but may raise the issue of illegality of its own motion. (Northwestern
Salt Co. Ltd. V Electrolytic Alkali Co. Ltd.1

The House of Lords in the important decision in Tinsley v Milligan2 , condemned any
approach to illegality of contracts which suggests that the courts simply have discretion as to
whatever as to whether to grant or refuse relief. However, the Law Commission has more
recently recommended that the courts should have such a discretion to decide whether
illegality should act as a defence to a claim in contract, in restitution or in respect of property
rights ‘Illegal Transactions: Effects of Illegality on Contracts and Trusts’, LCCP No. 154
(1999), discussed in more detail at 12.6.5).

The common law has historically been opposed to agreements that seek to limit an
individual’s freedom to exercise his/her lawful trade and profession. This position is rather
conflicting, however, because the only means by which the law is capable of protecting an

1
[1914] AC 461)
2
[1994] 1 AC 340 at 358
7
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

individual’s freedom to trade is by restricting his/her freedom to contract.

Contracts with an Illegal Purpose


Rule: If either the consideration or the subject matter of a contract is illegal the contract
will be unenforceable. However, if the contract was formed for an illegal purpose, but neither
the consideration nor subject matter is illegal then the contract may be enforceable. The
contract would be enforceable at the option of the party not directly involved in the illegality.
Example: Landlord rents an apartment, but the tenant wishes to use the apartment for an
illegal purpose. Here, the letting of the apartment is not illegal only the use of the apartment
for unlawful activity is.

Contracts Made Illegal by Operation of Law


Rule: Sometimes during the contract formation process laws may change that could
render an otherwise legal contract illegal by operation of law.
1. Before offer made: If new law came into force before an offer was made then any offer
made was not being considered valid in the first place.
2. After offer made: If the new law came into force after the offer was made then it would
have the effect of revoking the offer made.
3. After contract formed: If the new law came into force after the contract was formed (offer
and acceptance) then it would have the effect of discharging the parties on the grounds of
impossibility.

The chapters followed will individually deal with the types of illegal contract in perspective
of trade ethics.

8
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 2

GAMBLING CONTRACT
A gambling contract is a contract under which two persons mutually agree that upon the
determination of some uncertain event, one shall pay to the other, the winner, a sum of money
or other stake (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.)3. A contract will be treated in the same way
if its purpose is gambling even if the parties have dressed the contract in the guise of a sale
(Brogden v Marriot )4. Gambling, includes ‘gaming’ (betting is the outcome of games,
including horseracing) and other wagers, but the two are sometimes treated differently. There
is little good reason of policy why they should be.

At common law such contracts were valid, but a series of statutes have very largely
reversed that rule. Since the unenforceability in this area extends also to securities and loans,
detailed treatment must be left to practitioners’ work.

Below is the brief summary of the law.

Gaming Act, 1845

Section 18 of the Gaming Act, 1845 provides:

All contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing, by way of gaming or


wagering, shall be null and void; and no suit shall be brought or maintained in any
court of law and equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to
have been won upon any wager, or which shall have been deposited in the hands of
any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have been made….

The effect of this section is threshold. In the first place, recovery on the basis of a gambling
contract is impossible. Secondly, collateral contracts associated with gambling contracts are
also unenforceable. Thus a contract to pay gambling debts in return for not being posted as a
defaulter, although not itself a gambling contract, is unenforceable since any claim would be
brought to recover a sum alleged to have been won on a wager (Will v William Hill Ltd.)5.
Lastly, money deposited with a stakeholder cannot be recovered as winnings, although the

3
[1892] 2 QB 484 at 490
4
(1836) 3 Bing NC 88
5
[1949] AC 530
9
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

section has been paid over to the winner (Diggle v Higgs).6

The Act, however, makes the gaming and wagering contract void and unenforceable.
It does not make them illegal. This means that people are still free to enter into gambling
agreements; they simply cannot enforce them in the courts.

6
[1872] 2 ExD 422
10
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 3

SECURITIES
Sometimes a winner receives a security, such as a cheque, in payment. Such a security has
been unenforceable in the case of gamming winnings since the passing of the Gaming Act
1710. This rule caused hardship in the case of negotiable instruments given as security, since
they might subsequently be given in payment to a third party who would be deprived of their
value for no good reason. Relief was provided by the Gambling Act 1835, which said that
such securities were that a third party receiving the negotiable consideration. The result was
that a third party receiving the negotiable instrument would be able to enforce it if able to
show that consideration had been given for it without notice of the illegality. In the case of
securities given for non-gaming winnings, after the Gaming Act, 1845 a similar rule applies,
but the burden of proof in this case is on the person drawing the instrument to show that no
value has been given (Lilley v Rankin ).7

The Gaming Act 1968 legalised some forms of gaming, and by s. 16 cheques which
are not post dated and which are given in exchange only for the face value of the cheque in
order to be able to take part (e.g., a cheque to purchase chips) are enforceable by the holder of
an appropriate licence under the Act.

7
[1887] 56 LJ QB 248
11
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 4

TRADE
From as early as the seventeenth century, the English courts have held contracts in
restraint of trade to be prima facie void. Lord MacNaghten authoritatively states the current
position in Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt.8 The basic presumption is that contracts or
provisions within a contract, which are in restraint of trade, are unenforceable. That
presumption can be rebutted, however, if it is shown that the restraint is reasonable, both
between the parties themselves and in relation to the public interest.

Where the object of an agreement is to interfere with the freedom of a person to carry
on any lawful trade or profession the said agreement is called agreement in restrain of trade.
Freedom of contract and freedom of trade are well recognised rules of law. The public policy
requires that every man shall be at liberty, in welfare of the community to carry on his trade,
business or profession to the best of his capacity. Any restraint of trade not only affects the
means of livelihood of an individual% but also affects the industrial growth and enterprise
and thereby weakens the whole economic system of a country. Further it deprives the skill
and services of capable persons.
Currently, there are four types of contracts that fall within restraint of trade doctrine.
First, there are covenants imposed by an employer upon an employee whereby the former
imposes a restriction upon the latter after leaving employment; for example, that the
employee shall not work in a similar capacity for a specified period within a defined
geographical area. Secondly, as we have seen in the Nordenfelt case above, a covenant may
be imposed upon the seller of a business. Clearly, the purchaser of, for example, a corner
shop across the road and entice away all the established custom. Thirdly, there may be
contracts where a group of manufacturers or trade combine to restrict output or fix prices of
certain commodities. Such agreements fall within the common law doctrine of restraint but it
should be noted that they are also regulated by statute; the provisions are currently contained
in the Competition Act, 1998. Finally there are exclusive dealing contracts such as “solus”
agreements in the petrol trade where a garage proprietor agrees to sell only the products of a
particular oil company. It must be stressed again that all these agreements are prima facie

void and their validity depends upon it being established that they are reasonable.
8
Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd; sub nom. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition
Co. v Nordenfelt [1894] A.C. 535, HL
12
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

Solus Agreements: Such agreements are common in the petrol industry whereby the operator
of a garage agrees to buy their petroleum products from only one oil company. In Petrofina
(Great Britian) Ltd v Martin9 the Court of Appeal confirmed that the restraint of trade
doctrine applied to solus agreements. The leading case is the decision of the House of Lords
in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd.10

The facts of the case were that the respondents owned two garages, Mustow Green
and Corner, and entered into solus agreement with the respondents, a major oil company. In
relation to Mustow Green the agreement was to last for almost four and a half years and it
provided that the respondents should buy only the respondents’ petrol which was supplied at
a small discount. With regard to Corner, the appellants loaned the respondents sum of £ 7,000
who then mortgaged the garage premises to the appellants; repayment was to be over a period
of 21 years. The respondents began to sell petrol supplied by another manufacturer and the
appellants sought to enforce the two agreements. The House of Lords confirmed that the
agreements in question were within the doctrine of restraint of trade. In relation to the
Mustow Green Garage, the period of under five years was reasonable as being no longer than
necessary to protect the legitimate interest of the appellant, which was identified as the
maintenance of a stable system of distribution. It was not contrary to the public interest. With
regard to Corner garage the tie of 21 years went beyond what was reasonable – developments
over such a period were not necessary foreseeable and in the absence of evidence justifying
such a duration, the tie was struck down.

The House of Lords drew a distinction between:

(a) an operator of a garage who is already in possession of land before they tie themselves
to an oil company; and

(b) a party who is out of possession and let into it by the company, for example, under a
lease.

The transaction in (a) is within the restraint of trade doctrine; (b), however, is not, as the
party going into possession surrenders no freedom they had previously enjoyed.

EXCEPTIONS:

9
[1966] Ch. 146
10
[1968] A.C. 269
13
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

They are statutory exceptions and judicial exceptions.


Statutory Exceptions: They are given in the Act itself. They are:
1. Sale of goodwill: One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to
refrain from carrying on similar business so long as the buyer carries on a like business
therein. The said exception is subject to the following conditions:
(a) It must apply to only a similar business.
(b) It must apply only within specified local limits
(c) It must be in force only so long as the buyer carries on a like business; and
(d) The restriction will be valid only if it is considered by the court as a reasonable one.
2. Under Partnership Act:
(a) A partner shall not carry on any business other than that of the firm which he is a partner.
(b) An outgoing partner may agree with his partners not to carry on a business similar to that
of the firm within a specified period or within specified local limits.
(c) Partners may enter into an agreement among themselves that none of them on ceasing to
be partner will carry on any business similar to that of the firm within specified period or
within specified local limit of a firm, make an agreement with the buyer that such partner will
not carry on any business similar to that of the firm within a specified period or within a
specified limit.
Judiciary exceptions: They are ensuing from judicial interpretation of section 27.
I. Trade combinations: Traders and manufacturers in the same line of business normally
form associations to regulate business or to fix prices. The regulations as to the opening and
closing of business in a market, licensing of traders, supervision and control of dealers and
the mode of dealing are not unlawful even if they are in restraint of trade.
2. Sole or exclusive dealing agreements: In business appointment of sole selling or
distributing agents is quite common. Such agreements have been held to be perfectly legal.
3. Service agreements: Restriction during service shall not be void. But after the termination
of service an agreement by which a person is restrained from competing with his earner
master shall be void.
Uncertain agreements: An agreement the meaning of which is not certain is void. If there is
ambiguity in the wording of contract it is not possible to read the exact intention of the parties
to the contract. Where the term in agreement is vague and may be, interpreted in many ways,
then the agreement is void because of uncertainty.

14
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 5

SEVERANCE
In the most cases, the illegality taints part of the agreement. In such situations the courts
have jurisdiction to sever the illegal part so long as the remainder of the agreement is left
substantially intact. If the entire contract is tainted by the illegality, severance will not be
possible. In Napier v National Business Agency11, the plaintiff was employed to act as the
defendant’s secretary and accountant at a salary of £13 a week together with £6 a week for
expenses. Both the parties knew that the plaintiff’s expenses would never reach £6 a week,
but this provision was included in order to defraud the Inland Revenue. Following his
summary dismissal, the paintiff’s expenses would never reach £6 a week, but this provision
was included in tiff brought a claim for payment in lieu of notice. The Court of Appeal denied
the claim on the basis that the whole agreement was tainted by illegality.
By contrast, in Carney v Herbert12, severance was permitted. The case concerned a
contract for the sale of shares by installments. The sellers asked for security for the payment
of these installments but the security given was illegal under s 67 of the Companies Act 1961.
The Privy Council held that the illegal security could be severed from the contract for the
purchase of the shares. The defendant therefore remained liable to pay the purchase price of
the shares.

11
[1951] 2 All E.R. 264
12
[1985] A.C. 301
15
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 6

IMMORAL
If the consideration or object of an agreement is regarded by the Court to be immoral or
opposed to public policy, the agreement is unlawful and the same has also been declared void
by section 23.
A landlord letting his house, knowing that the same was to be used for the purpose of
running a brothel, cannot recover the rent of the same. 13 Advancing loan to a person for going
to brothels for prostitution, is unlawful, and the loan thus given cannot be recovered.
Similarly, advancing loan to a prostitute to enable her to carry on her trade, or lending her
ornaments to attract male customers, is unlawful and the money or ornaments so lent cannot
be recovered.
In Bai Vijli v Nansa Nagar14, the plaintiff advanced loan to the defendant, a married
woman, to enable her to obtain divorce against her husband and then marry the plaintiff. The
object of the agreement was held to be immoral and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover
the loan so advanced.

Contract opposed to public policy void and same could not be enforced in the Court of
law
The right to claim maintenance by the wife, children and the old parents, who are not capable
to maintain themselves, has been provided under section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 as a public policy by the state. The definition of “wife” has also been given
extended meaning by the statute in order to provide security in life to a wife whose marriage
has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and who being a destitute is unable to maintain
herself. This is a matter of public policy and not of an individual. In such circumstances, the
statutory right which has been conferred on a person under a public policy cannot be waived
by the said person by mutual agreement. It is also well settled that any contract which is
opposed to public policy is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the
same cannot be enforced in a Court of Law. If the object or consideration of an agreement
would defeat the provisions of any law, and if it is against the public policy, the agreement
will be treated as unlawful and void.

13
Choga Lal v Piyari, (1909) 31 All. 58
14
(1885) 10 Bom. 152.
16
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 7

CONTRACTS PROMOTING SEXUAL IMMORALITY


Contracts promoting sexual immorality are deemed to be contrary to public policy. The
conduct concerned need not constitute a criminal offence and the courts will generally refuse
to enforce any contract that directly or indirectly promotes sexual immorality.
Pearce v Brooks15
Facts: The plaintiff coach-builders supplied the defendant with an ornamental brougham,
which was to be paid for by installments. After one installment had been paid, the brougham
was returned in a damaged condition. The plaintiff brought a claim to recover the 15 guineas
that was owed for early return of the brougham. At trial, the jury found that the plaintiff knew
that the defendant was a prostitute and supplied the brougham in the knowledge that it was to
be used by her to attract men.
Held: The court of Exchequer held that the contract was illegal and that the plaintiff could not
recover the unpaid installment from the defendant.
It was a crucial decision in Pearce v Brooks16 that both the parties knew that the
brougham was to be used for the purpose of prostitution. Had this not been known to the
plaintiff it is highly likely that recovery would have been allowed. Indeed, in Appleton v
Campbell17, a case concerning the recovery of broad and lodging for a room rented to a
prostitute – the court held that the plaintiff would only be denied recovery if he knew that the
defendant intended to use the room to entertain her clients. There are thus two factors that are
necessary for the contract to be unenforceable. First, it must be shown that the plaintiff knew
that the other party was a prostitute; and second, it must be shown that the plaintiff knew that
what was supplied under the contract was to be used for the purposes of prostitution.
Attitudes to sexual morality have changed since the Edwardian era, particularly so in
the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. This shift in public attitudes is reflected in
the decision of the Court of Appeal in Armhouse Le Ltd v Chappell18 where the defendants
were providers of three types of service: pre-recorded erotic stories played to customers over
the telephone

15
(1865-66) L.R. 1 Ex. 213, Ex Ct
16
id
17
(1826) 2 C & P 347; 172 ER 157
18
1996, CA (Civ Div) 17
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 8

WAGERING AGREEMENT

The Contract Act does not define a wagering agreement. The nature of such an agreement has
been explained by Hawkins J. in Carlill v Carbolic Ball Co.19 in the following words:
“A wagering contract is one by which two persons, professing to hold opposite views
touching the issue of a future uncertain event, mutually agree that, dependent upon the
determination of that event, one shall win from the other, and that other shall pay or
hand over to him, a sum of money or other stake; neither of the contracting parties
having any other interest in that contract than the sum or stake he will so win or lose,
there being no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of the
parties. It is essential to a wagering contract that each party may under it either win or
lose, whether he will win or lose being dependent on the issue is known. If either of
the parties may win but cannot lose, or may lose but cannot win, it is not a wagering
contract.”

Prize Money in Lottery Tickets


Lottery means a scheme for distribution of prizes by draw of lots or by any other
procedure which depends on chance only. The agreement to pay prizes on lottery is an
agreement by way of wager and, therefore, void under section 30 of the Contract Act.
In Shekhachand Jain v Ramnarayan20 the question was regarding recovery of prize on a
State Lottery Ticket. It was held that through a State lottery is not illegal, the same is
nonetheless in the nature of wager, and, therefore, void. Hence, a person declared winner of
prize money on lottery cannot sue for the recovery of the prize money. Similar was also the
decision in Subhash Kumar Manwani v State of M.P.21 It has been held in this case that an
agreement to pay prize money on a lottery ticket is a wagering agreement and, therefore, such
an agreement is void under sections 30 of the Contract Act. Further, neither the provisions of
the State or the Central Act controlling activities relating to lottery would change the nature
of such an agreement. Hence, the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for recovery of the prize
money by the lower courts was held by the M.P. High Court to be justified.

19
[1893] 1 Q.B. 256, CA
20
(1977) 2 M.P.W.N. 118
21
A.I.R. 2000 M.P. 109
18
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

Speculative Transactions
One of the forms of wagering contracts is an agreement to pay the difference only,
rather than actually making or taking the delivery of the goods. Although in a contract, the
parties may agree about sale of goods on the stated price at a future date, but their real
intention may not be the supply of the goods but only the payment of difference in the price
by one party to the other, depending on the rise or fall of market. Such an agreement is
wagering.
In Kong Yee Lone & Co. v Lowjee Nanjee,22 the owner of a rice mill, with the capital a
little over one lac of rupees, agreed to sell 1,99,000 bags of rice costing above 5 crores of
rupees, i.e., worth over 500 times the capital. The obvious inference in this case was that
neither party intended the performance of the contract. The agreement was held to be by way
of wager and thus void.
A contract which provides for repayment of differences only without intention on the
part of either of the parties to give or take delivery of the goods is admittedly a wager within
the meaning of section 30 of the Contract Act.23 Thus, if there is a contract of sale and
purchase of an article at place, where it has never been produced or traded, and according to
the course of dealing, the settlement in such cases is made by paying differences only, it is a
wagering agreement.
When the parties intend the performance of a future contract and such a performance is
not otherwise impossible, it would be a valid business transaction rather than a wagering
contract. Thus, if in a contract for sale of shares, an actual delivery is intended, it cannot be
considered to be a wagering contract. 24 “In all forward contracts, there is an element of
speculation. Such a contract is not a wagering contract unless both the parties intend not to
take delivery in any event, and, whatever happens, only to adjust the difference.”25
So long as the parties are not absolved in any event from delivering the commodity, and
the delivery has to be made when demand, it is not a wagering agreement.

22
(1903) 29 I.A. 239
23
Gherulal Parakh v Mohadeodas, AIR 1959 S.C. 781, per Subba Rao J.
24
Buddulal v Shrikisan, A.I.R. 1961 M.P. 57
25
id
19
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

Teji Mandi Transactions


It is a contract under which one of the parties is given a double option either to purchase
or to sell, whichever would suit him, a certain commodity, at a certain rate, on a specified
future date, i.e. the vaida day. For example, A, by paying a certain premium or commission
per bag to B, is given an option by B to purchase or sell 100 bags of wheat on 1 st January
next. If the price of the wheat on 1st January comes down e.g., to Rs. 180, A can exercise the
option to sell the wheat at the agreed price of Rs. 200 per bag. On the other hand, if the price
of wheat rises, e.g., to Rs. 225 per bag. A may exercise the option to purchase the same at the
agreed price of Rs. 200. In case of such transactions also the validity of the contract would
depend on the fact whether the parties intended to actually affect the delivery of the goods or
not. If the intention is to settle by paying the differences only, the agreement would b ea
wager, and thus void.

20
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 9
REFORMS SUGGESTED

21
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

CHAPTER 10

CONCLUSION

22
Trade Ethics and Illegal Contracts

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Beatson.J Anason’s law of contract, Oxford University Press, 2006


2. Gupta, Prabhat K, Contract with Specific Relief, Centeral Law Agency: Allahabad,
2007
3. Poole, Jill , Textbook on Contract Law, Oxford University Press, 2005
4. Rai, kailash Contract 1: General Principles of Contract and Specific Relief Act:
Centeral Law Agency, Allahabad, 2007
5. Singh Avtar, Contract and Specific relief Act , 10th Eastern Book Company,
Luckhnow, 2006

23

You might also like