Skip to content

CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Capacity of Parties, Free Consent

Ramesh threatens to unlawfully detain the goods of Suresh lying in his godown unless Suresh signs an agreement to sell him a machine at a low price. Suresh signs. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, this agreement is:

The agreement is a contract voidable at Suresh's option. Threatening to unlawfully detain property to make someone agree is coercion under Section 15, and Section 19 makes a contract caused by coercion voidable by the party whose consent was so caused.

  1. Avoid ab initio because consent was not free
  2. Bvalid, because only threats to a person's life amount to coercion
  3. Ca contract voidable at the option of SureshCorrect
  4. Dan illegal contract that neither party can ever enforce

Explanation

Section 15 includes unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain any property with the intention of causing a person to enter an agreement. Under Section 19, consent caused by coercion makes the contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused, so Suresh may avoid it. It is not void, and coercion is not limited to threats to life.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Capacity of Parties, Free Consent shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Capacity of Parties, Free ConsentFree diagnostic mock

More Capacity of Parties, Free Consent questions