Question Details

It is essential to the creation of a contract that both parties should agree to the same thing in the same sense. Mutual consent, which should also be a free consent, is the sine qua non of a valid agreement and one of its essential elements is that a thing is understood in the same sense by a party as is understood by the other. Not only consent, but free consent is provided in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to be necessary to the complete validity of a contract. Consent is free when it works without obstacles to impede its exercise. Where there is no consent or no real and certain object of consent, there can be no contract at all. Where there is consent, but not free consent, there is generally a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was not free. A general averment that consent was not freely obtained is not enough, and it is necessary to set up one of the vitiating elements such as fraud which includes, false assertion, active concealment, promise without intention of performing it, any other deceptive act, or any act declared as fraudulent. In order to constitute fraud, the act should have been done by the party to the contract, or by any other person with his connivance, or by his agent and with intent to deceive the other party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract. There is no duty upon parties to speak about facts likely to affect the other party’s consent to the contract and mere silence does not amount to fraud, unless the circumstances of the case show that there is duty to speak, or silence is, in itself equivalent to speech. On the other hand, misrepresentation falls into three categories: (i) a statement of fact, which if false, would be misrepresentation if the maker believes it to be true, but which is not justified by the information he possesses; (ii) any breach of duty which gains an advantage to the person committing it by misleading another to his prejudice, there being no intention to deceive; and (iii) causing a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement, even though done innocently.

Mr. A sells a car to Mr. Y, his childhood friend with a knowledge that the car is defective. Before buying the car, Mr. Y says to Mr. A, “If you do not deny it, I shall assume that the car is perfect”. Mr. A says nothing. In light of the statement, decide the liability of Mr. A.

Options

A

A’s silence is equivalent to speech and hence a misrepresentation.

B

A is not liable for fraud, but liable for misrepresentation.

C

A is liable for fraud and misrepresentation both.

D

A’s silence is equivalent to speech and hence a fraud.

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option D

A’s silence is equivalent to speech and hence a fraud.

Solution :

The correct option is: A’s silence is equivalent to speech and hence a fraud.


Step-by-step Explanation:


1. Understanding the Principle of Consent and Fraud:

According to Section 10 and Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (as discussed in the passage), free consent is essential for a valid contract. Fraud includes active concealment of a defect, false assertions, or any deceptive act committed with the intent to deceive or induce another party to enter into a contract.


2. Rule Regarding Silence as Fraud:

The passage explicitly highlights the rule regarding silence: "There is no duty upon parties to speak about facts likely to affect the other party’s consent to the contract and mere silence does not amount to fraud, unless the circumstances of the case show that there is duty to speak, or silence is, in itself equivalent to speech."


3. Application of the Principle to the Facts:

In this scenario, Mr. Y specifically puts a condition to Mr. A before purchasing the car: “If you do not deny it, I shall assume that the car is perfect.”

Here, Mr. Y makes it clear that Mr. A's silence will be taken as an affirmative statement that the car has no defects. By choosing to remain silent while knowing that the car is defective, Mr. A's silence becomes directly equivalent to saying, "The car is perfect."


4. Conclusion:

Because silence in this specific circumstance is equivalent to speech, and Mr. A acted with knowledge of the defect to deceive Mr. Y, Mr. A's silence amounts to fraud under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.


Thus, A’s silence is equivalent to speech and hence a fraud.

Unlock Our Free Library

Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.

Ask AI Tutor
5 left
Q1 View Question & Options
AI Tutor is solving this question...
Reading question context & options...