Select Page

Free consent The consent of both contracting parties must be free. This is an essential prerequisite for the validity of a contract. It is therefore important not only that there is consent, but also consent. Voluntary consent is called free consent. Under section 14 of the Indian Contracts Act of 1872, free consent is consent that is not the result of coercion (section 15), undue influence (section 16), fraud (section 17), misrepresentation (section 18) or error (sections 20, 21 and 22). The principle of consensus-ad-idem, which means “meeting of minds”, underlies the concept of free consent. Consensus-ad-idem occurs when two parties agree on the same thing with the same understanding. Also, if consent is not free and is caused accidentally, is the agreement? According to section 14 of the Indian Contracts Act 1857, free consent is defined as “consent shall be considered free if it is not caused by coercion, influence, fraud, misrepresentation and error”. In the previous article on free consent, we already covered the first four factors.

The burden of proof lies with the party who claims to make a false statement to evade the contract, to prove that a false statement was used to obtain consent. If consent is obtained by misrepresentation, it may be revoked at the choice of the party who obtained the consent. Article 20 provides that if both parties do not agree on the same thing in the same way and are therefore subject to an error of fact essential to the contract, they must have made a bilateral error. This Agreement shall be deemed void. For example, Ankita agrees to sell her house in Ira. Ankita owns three houses and wants to sell the house in Delhi. Ira thinks she is buying her house in Mumbai. There is no consensus-ad-idem between Ankita and Ira. Therefore, there is no consent and therefore no contract between them. If the parties have a misunderstanding about the subject matter or terms of the contract, it is called a factual error. The misunderstanding could come from one or both parties. Under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, a legally enforceable agreement and promise become a “contract.” All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts.

Section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act deals with “which agreements are contracts” if they are entered into by the contract agent, with the free consent of the parties, for legal consideration and for a legitimate purpose and are not expressly declared null and void by law. Consent is defined as “when two or more people agree on the same thing in the same way”. The Contracting Parties should have agreed on the subject at the same time along the same lines. There should be an “ad idem consensus”, which means “identity of the mind between the parties”. If there is no consent or an error in consent, there is no contract. The person must give his or her valid consent at the time of conclusion of the contract; the person has fulfilled the following conditions: These are the most important prerequisites for the conclusion of the contract. And the contract must be the free consent of the parties. Free consent is mandatory for the contract. This is the meaning of a valid contract. (3) The third type is when one party acts innocently and causes the other party to make errors concerning the subject matter of the contract. In KIRAN BALA v. BHAIRE PRASAD SRIVASTAVA (1982), the appellant`s first marriage was annulled on the grounds that she was not of sound mind at the time of the marriage.

She was married to the accused for the second time and kept secret the reason for the annulment of the first marriage of the groom and his parents. The court ruled that the groom`s consent had been obtained by fraud and was overturned by a decree under the Hindu Marriage Act. The burden of proof lies with the party whose consent was obtained by misrepresentation and is voidable at the discretion of the aggrieved party, although it cannot sue the other party for damages. […] […] Article 17 clearly states that mere silence is not fraud. But the active obfuscation of facts requires efforts to hide the truth, so silence, when it boils down to an active obfuscation of facts, amounts to fraud. If the consent is based on an error of fact on the part of both parties, the contract is deemed null and void. According to Article 13, “two or more persons shall be designated as agreeing with the same thing in the same sense (consensus-ad-idem). According to article 14, consent is considered free if it is not caused by coercion or undue influence or fraud, misrepresentation or error. If consent is given in one of the four circumstances above, the contract will be deemed voidable and will only be deemed enforceable at the option of the injured party (section 19 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872). The burden of proof lies with the person who terminates the contract, i.e.

the person whose free consent to the conclusion of a contract has not been obtained. A, who owns three Maruti cars, offers to sell one, say, “Auto X” to B for Rs. 2,00,000. B agrees to buy the car for the price because he thinks A sells “Auto Y”. There is no consent and therefore no contract. A and B did not agree on the same thing, but on different things. If consent is obtained by deception, it is not said to be free. In such cases, the contract is voidable at the discretion of the party whose consent was obtained by deception. In addition, fraud is a crime for which a claim for damages can be invoked.

The term “fraud” is defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1872. The Law defines five acts that constitute fraud when committed either by the party or with his assistance or by his agent with the intention of deceiving the other party. Here are the shares in question: A agrees to sell his 2004 Model Maruti car for Rs. 1,00,000. B undertakes to buy it. There is a valid contract because A and B have agreed on the same object. * If there is no consent, there can be no contract at all and the agreement is considered null and void. 1) Whether the contract is something that a person who has a just mind will conclude or not. For example, if a person were forced to sign a life insurance policy from a family member who is the designated beneficiary of the contract, the policy would not be valid because they did not voluntarily enter into it.