What do you mean by Doctrine of Election?
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines thiRead more
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines this principle to the effect of saying that ‘every contract to do an impossible act is void’. The contract becomes frustrated when there is an event that has the affect of making the purpose of the contract impossible, unlawful or totally unexpected by both the parties to the contract.
The most famous of these are the Indian case Of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954). In this case, the role of Supreme court referred to the decision making under the rule of frustration that Say the contract becomes frustrated where there is a condition that went to the root of the contract and made its performance impossible. In the case, it is shown that the building land contract was interrupted due to the governmental orders during the Second World War. That is why the Courts ruled that due to the war related restriction the parties were unable to perform their obligations under the contract and thus, the contract was frustrated.
Disaffection cannot be recorded where the issue of the challenge in performance is temporal or where the event was anticipated. It is also not allowed where the contract has provided for how particular incidences should be handled in as much as they are contingencies.
See less
Introduction: Under this doctrine, if a transferor confers certain benefits upon a person and also imposes certain liability then the person should either accept the whole transfer or reject it entirely. It is based upon the principle of Estoppel where a person who approves a part of transaction whiRead more
Introduction: Under this doctrine, if a transferor confers certain benefits upon a person and also imposes certain liability then the person should either accept the whole transfer or reject it entirely. It is based upon the principle of Estoppel where a person who approves a part of transaction which is beneficial to him and rejects that part which is detrimental to him is not allowed.
See lessIngredients of Section 35:
1. A person who is not the owner can not transfer property but he can make arrangements for the property.
2. In lieu of the transfer, the transferor confers certain benefits upon the owner of the property.
Suspension of Election: When at the time of transfer the owner is legally disabled then his duty to elect is suspended during his minority or lunacy until the disability ceases. Although election can also be made by his legal guardian even before the disability ceases.
Conclusion: The person who professes to transfer must confer some benefit upon the owner of the property. Where he accepts the instrument then he is entitled to benefit but he is bound to transfer his property. If he elects to reject the instrument he can not claim the benefit.