Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Contract Law

Vikram fraudulently tells Anand that an estate is free from encumbrance, and Anand buys it. The estate is in fact mortgaged. Which statement is correct under the Act?

Anand has a choice. Because his consent was caused by fraud, he may avoid the contract, or he may insist on performance and demand to be placed in the position he would have occupied had the statement been true, such as having the mortgage redeemed.

  1. AAnand may only rescind the contract and cannot insist on performance
  2. BAnand may either avoid the contract or insist on its performance and be put in the position as if the representation were trueCorrect
  3. CAnand may do neither because the sale is void
  4. DAnand may insist on performance only if Vikram agrees

Explanation

A party whose consent was caused by fraud may avoid the contract, or if he thinks fit insist that it be performed and that he be put in the position he would have been in had the representation been true. Hence the mortgage debt can be redeemed by the seller. Option A denies this second right.

Did you get it right without looking?

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

More Contract Law questions