Skip to content

CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Performance of Contracts

Ravi agrees to deliver 100 bales of cotton to Mehta at Mehta's warehouse on 1 March. Ravi arrives on time with the cotton, but Mehta's staff refuse to let the vehicle in and deny any chance to inspect the bales. Which analysis best fits the Act?

Ravi is excused. Mehta's refusal to allow entry and inspection denies reasonable facilities, so Section 67 excuses the non-delivery it caused. Under Section 38, an unaccepted offer of performance leaves the promisor not responsible and with his contractual rights intact.

  1. ARavi's non-delivery is excused under Section 67, and his offer under Section 38 not being accepted does not cost him his rights under the contractCorrect
  2. BRavi loses his rights under the contract because delivery did not occur
  3. CRavi is excused only if he first delivers the cotton to a third person
  4. DRavi's offer is invalid because Section 38 requires the promisee to accept it before it counts

Explanation

Mehta's refusal denies reasonable facilities, so Section 67 excuses the non-performance it caused. Section 38 states that where a valid offer of performance is not accepted, the promisor is not responsible for non-performance and does not lose his rights. Acceptance is not a condition of a valid offer, so the last option is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Performance of Contracts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Performance of ContractsFree diagnostic mock

More Performance of Contracts questions