Principle: When an offer is accepted by a person to whom it is made, it becomes a promise. But this promise will become legally binding only when the acceptance of the offer is unconditional.
Facts: Ram makes an offer to sell his house to Shyam for Rs.50 lacs. Shyam accepts this offer but wants to pay the price of the house in five quarterly instalments. Ram does not agree to it. Thereafter Shyam agrees to pay the price of the house in the way as originally desired by Ram. But Ram does not reply to it. Can Shyam compel Ram to sell his house to him?

• Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam ultimately agrees to pay the price as originally desired by Ram

• Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam in the first instance substantially complied with the desire of Ram

• Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Ram’s offer does not exclude the payment of price in instalments

• Shyam can not compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam imposes a new condition about payment of price of the house while accepting the offer which is not ultimately accepted by Ram

Principle: Generally an agreement without consideration is not valid. Therefore, in order to make a valid agreement, some consideration which may have some value in the eyes of law, is essentially required.
Facts: William has an old car of which he makes seldom use. He voluntarily enters into an agreement with Smith to sell this car for rupees ten thousand. Thereafter one Anson approaches William and offers to buy that car for rupees one lac as the car was one which Anson has been searching for long. Now William wants to cancel his agreement with Smith and refuses to deliver the car to him saying that consideration (price) for the car promised by Smith is negligible and, therefore, agreement with him can not be said to be valid one.

• William can cancel his agreement with Smith as the consideration involved in that is really inadequate

• William can not cancel his agreement with Smith as the sale of car for rupees ten thousand was voluntary and this price has some value in the eyes of law.

• William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he was ignorant about the value / price of the car for which it could be sold.

• William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he is entitled to get full market value/price of his car.

Principle: In order to be illegible to appear in the semester examination, a student is required to attend, under all circumstances, at least 70% of the total classes held in that semester as per University rules.
Facts: Anand, an economically poor but a very brilliant student of LL.B. final semester, while going to his University by cycle received some leg injuries in road accident. Consequently Anand could not attend his classes for one week as he was advised rest by his doctor for that period. Due to this absence from the University, Anand failed to have 70% attendance essential to appear in the examination and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination by the University authorities. Anand challenges this decision in the court of law

• Anand will succeed in the court of law as the accident was beyond his control

• Anand will definitely get favour of the court on humanitarian ground as he comes from a economically poor family and may not afford to take readmission

• Anand will not succeed as he could very easily fulfill eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination by being reasonably regular in the class throughout the semester

• Anand will succeed as requirement of 70% attendance may be declared arbitrary and, therefore, unreasonable by the court of law

Principle: A seller of goods cannot transfer better rights than he himself possesses in the goods sold to the buyer.
Facts: Komal leaves his watch by mistake on a seat in the park. Sonal finds that watch and immediately sells the same for good price to Monal who without inquiring whether Sonal is its owner or not. Komal later on claims that watch from Monal. Decide whether Komal can succeed?

• Komal cannot succeed as Monal has paid good price of the watch

• Komal cannot succeed as Monal is unaware of the fact that Sonal is not its owner.

• Komal can not succeed as it was his carelessness and nothing else which enabled Sonal to sell the watch to Monal

• None of the above 

Principle: All citizens shall have the Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. But reasonable restrictions on the exercise of such rights can be imposed by law in the interest of the general public.
Facts: A large number of persons had been carrying on the business of dyeing and printing in Rajkot area for the last 25 years providing employment to about 30000 families. From these business places untreated dirty water was being discharged on the roads thereby causing damage to the public health. A notice, therefore, was given to close this business till necessary measures to protect public health as provided under the environmental statutes were taken by those business men

• Notice can not be justified as it will cause loss of employment to 30000 families

• Notice can not be justified as it amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the persons who have been carrying on the business for the last 25 years

• The notice can not be justified on the ground of damage to public health as the persons in that area have been voluntarily residing for long and have become used to that environment.

• The notice can be justified as the right to business is not absolute and reasonable restriction can be imposed by law in the interest of the public.