NALSAR University of Law

Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

Law of Contract – I (General Principles of

COURSE TITLE:
Contract)
Dr. Rajesh Kapoor &
COURSE INSTRUCTOR:
Mr. Varun Malik

NATURE OF COURSE: Mandatory

COURSE CREDITS: 4 Credits

OFFERED TO: 2nd Semester students of BA LLB (H)

COURSE DURATION: January-April 2025

Class Hours: 54
TEACHING HOURS
Tutorial Hours : 10

Mid-semester exams (25 marks)

Project (25 marks)
End-semester exams (50 marks)

Both Mid Semester and End Semester

EVALUATION SCHEME
Exams shall be Closed Book. But, the
relevant Bareacts would be provided to the
students during both Mid-Sem and End–
Sem Examinations.
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

COURSE DESCRIPTION

The General Principles of Contracts form the basis of almost all the commercial dealings,
ranging from commonplace transactions such as buying and selling of consumer goods to the
complex commercial agreements entered into between large business corporations. The
general principles of contract law include inter alia the essential requirements to enter into
contractual relations, the elements that vitiate contracts, the statutory limitations on the
freedom of contract, the rules regulating performance of contracts, the rules regulating breach
of contracts and the remedies for breach of contract.

The course takes a building block approach to discuss the concepts/ principles related to law
of contracts. It has been designed in a way wherein every concept builds the foundation for
succeeding concepts. The entire course has been divided into three majors parts, each part
representing the broader theme for the constituent modules. The first part deals with the
formation of the contract and essentials of the contracts. The part aims to discuss firstly the
concepts (also the stages) of formation a legal relation called ‘the Agreement between the
parties.’ Secondly, the part discusses the distinction and similarities between a mere
agreement and a contract and in what cases an agreement could be regarded as a Contract.
The second obvious stage after the formation of the contract would be the performance of the
contract. The performance under the principles of Contracts, but, is considered as a way of
discharge of obligations. The part II of the course therefore deals with the discharge,
performance of contract being the opening module in the part. The part further discusses the
discharge from contractual obligations by breach and consequences of the breach (including
damages and Specific Performance of Contract). The part III of the course deals with certain
situations which do not fulfil the basic requirements of the contract (such as offer, acceptance
etc.) but create contract like obligations between the so called Parties. Parties related through
such events or happenings are deemed to be in the Contractual relations by way of legal
fiction so that no one could be unjustly enriched at the cost of other.

A detailed description of the abovementioned parts and constituent modules is provided

under the head “Course Content”.
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

OBJECTIVES OF THE COURSE

The course has a two-fold objective viz. the generic and the specific objective. Taking into
consideration the fact that Law of contract is one of the initial common law courses offered to
the students at NALSAR we, firstly and generically, aim to develop the understanding of the
students in regards to several common law doctrines (applicable to almost all the common
law subjects). The course further aims to build a run-way of basic mercantile law concepts for
the students so as to facilitate them for a smooth take off for advanced mercantile and
commercial law courses.

The specific objectives of the course includes firstly to make the students understand that
how the common law (which is highly un-codified) interacts or shapes itself when the
principles are codified in a statue and secondly to make them understand the basic tenets/
principles on which the entire body of law of contracts rests.

COURSE OUTCOME

1. To make the students understand several principles and doctrines of common law and
their application in the domain of contracts.
2. To appreciate the interaction between common law and the Contract Act and to
understand the basic principles of interpretation of the act in light of common law
doctrines and vice versa.
3. To develop an understanding, amongst the students, of the principles of equity and
their role in administration of contracts and in the process help the students realise
that the law of contract doesn’t operate out of mere technicalities but is informed by
the fundamental principles of human conscience.
4. To develop an understanding that market precedes the law and the law to a great
extent is informed by and developed through market practices
5. To develop an understanding, amongst the students, that a commercial lawyer must
cater as much to the social realities as much does (s)he take into consideration the
idea of market and commerce.
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

TEACHING METHODOLOGY

In India the general principles of contract law are embodied in the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
which is mainly based on principles derived from the English common law. In certain cases,
a conscious departure is made from the English position. In other cases, where the statute is
silent, the Indian courts have resorted to rules of English common law. Accordingly, in
discussing the general principles and their application in India, the English cases reflecting
the common law position would be necessarily examined.

The case law method would be adopted, with selected cases being used to understand and
analyse the legal principles. To better appreciate the legal position enunciated in a case,
secondary sources such as authoritative treatises and leading academic writings would also be
referred to.

LECTURE PLAN

MODULES TITLE NUMBER OF

REQUIRED
LECTURES
Module 1 Basics of Contract Formation 08
Module 2 Object and Consideration to Contracts 08
Module 3 Capacity to Contract 04
Module 4 Free Consent and Vitiating Factors 10
Module 5 Void Agreements 03
Module 6 Discharge by Performance 08
Module 7 Discharge by Breach and Remedy of 09
Damages
Module 8 Quasi Contracts 02
Module 9 Remedy of Specific Performance of 02
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

Contracts
Total Number of Hours 54

Class Hours: 54

Tutorial Hours: 10

COURSE CONTENT

Part I: Formation & Essentials of Valid Contracts

Module 1: Basics of Contract Formation

Any contractual relation between parties initiates with the offer made by one party and
acceptance of it by the other. The module shall discuss the effect of offer and acceptance. The
discussion around Offer/ Acceptance (“O/A”) would include mode of the making O/A,
Communication of O/A, invitation to make an offer and possibilities of stepping back from
the O/A (Revocation of O/A). The module shall further discuss the kinds of agreement (based
on their enforceability in the court of Law) and the rationale behind such categorization. The
module along with abovementioned discussions is aimed to make the students appreciate the
following distinct but interlinked equations

 Offer + Acceptance = Promise

 Promise + Consideration = Agreement
 Agreement + Legal Enforceability = Contract

The explanation and brief discussion around legal enforceability (in the last equation) shall
pave the path for discussions in the subsequent modules of this part.

The module further aims to discuss the modification induced in the laws of offers and
acceptances under the laws governing standard form of contracts.
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

Readings

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan (ed.) Pollock and Mulla, The Indian
Contract and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
 Daniel P. O’Gorman, Redefining Offer in Contract, 82(6) Mississippi Law
Review, 1049-1096 (2013)
 Shawn J. Bayern, Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needless
Concept, 103 California Law Review, 67-102 (2015)
 Martin A Hogg, Competing Thoeries of Contract An Emerging Consensus?, in
COMMERCIAL CONTRACT LAW TRANSATLANTIC PERSPECTIVES 14
(Larry A. DiMatteo, qi Zhou, Severine Sainter, Keith Rowley eds., 2013)

Case Laws
 Upton on Severn RDC v. Powell [(1942) All ER 220 (CA)]
 Steven v. Bromley and Sons [(1919) 2 KB 722 (CA)]
 Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt [(1913) 11 All LJ 489]
 Weeks v. Tybald [74 ER 982]
 Carllil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [(1893) 1 QB 256]
 Harbhajanlal v. Harcharanlal [AIR 1925 All. 539]
 Harvey v. Facey
 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists
 Brodgen v. Metropolital Railway Co. [(1877) 2 AC 666(HL)]
 Felthouse v. Bindley [(1863) 7 LT 835]
 Powell v. Lee [(1908) 24 TLR 606]
 Eliason v. Henshaw [(1819) 4 Wheaton 225] – US Case
 Yates Building Co. Ltd v. RJ Pedley and Sons
 Adams v. Lindsell [106 ER 250 Court of Kings Bench]
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 Household fire and Accident Insurance Company v. Grant

 Entores v. Miles Far East Corpn. [(1955) 2 QB 327]
 Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Giridharilal Purushottamdas and Co.
 Haji Mohd. Haji v. E. Spinner [ILR (1900) 24 Bom, 510]
 Hargopal v. People’s Bank of Nothern India [AIR 1935 Lah. 691]
 Union of India v. S. Narain Singh [AIR 1953 Punj. 274]
 Henthorn v. Fraser [(1969) 2 All.ER 1593]
 Alfred Scholank v. Muthunnaya Chetti [(1892) 2 MLJ 57]
 K.Appa Rao v. Tungabhadra Steels Products Ltd.
 Mountford v. Scott [(1975) 1 AllER 198 (CA)]
 Dickinson v. Dodds [(1876) 2 Ch.D 463]
 R. Vinoth Kumar v. Secretary, Kilpauk Medical College, Madras [(1995) 2 MLJ
158]

Module 2: Object and Consideration to Contracts

This module is divided into two sections viz. Lawful Object and Consideration. The two
concepts take into account the nature of the agreement in order decide its legal enforceability.
These concepts seem to be similar (and in some cases are) but still are theoretically grossly
distinct. In order to appreciate the above-mentioned similarities and distinctions a deliberate
decision has been made to discuss both these concepts together in the same module.

At the very outset, we intend to discuss the common law conception of consideration and
how have different scholars understood the requirement of consideration in formation of the
contract. In light of the above debates the requirement of Intention to create legal obligation
along with Indian departure from English law on the point shall be discuss. Several doctrines
integral to the concept of consideration such as doctrine of past/ existing obligations, doctrine
of Privity of Contract and Consideration shall be discussed. There are several departures
which Indian law has made from English law on these points. Most of these major departures
and reasons for the same are intended to be discussed with the students.
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

Having discussed the concept of consideration, we intend to discuss the concept of lawful
object in light of doctrines of consideration.

The module further discusses the remedy of rescission and cancellation, under the specific
relief act, of agreements void for unlawful object or consideration.

Reading

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan (ed.) Pollock and Mulla, The Indian
Contract and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
 A. G. Chloros, The Doctrine of Consideration and the Reform of the Law of
Contract, 17 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 137, 166 (1968)
 Francis Dawson, Contract as Assumption and Consideration Theory: A
Reassessment of Williams v Roffey Bros, 42 Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. 135-
158 (2011)
 Dan Halyk, Consideration, Practical Benefits and Promissory Estoppel:
Enforcement of Contract Modification Promises in Light of Williams v. Roffey
Brothers, 55 Sask. L. Rev. 393, 414 (1991)
 Atiyah, P. S., 'Consideration: A Restatement', Essays on Contract, Clarendon
Paperbacks (Oxford, 1990; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 Mar. 2012)

Recommended Reading

 Charles B. Howell, Contract and Consideration: Mansfield and Cardozo, 1

Intramural L. Rev. St. Louis U. 75, 92 (1949)
 David Gamage & Allan Kedem, Commodification and Contract Formation:
Placing Consideration Doctrine on Stronger Foundation, 73 The University of
Chicago Law Review, 1299-1385 (2006)
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

Case Laws

 Balfour v. Balfour
 McGregor v. McGregor [(1888) 21 QBD 424 (CA)]
 Simpkins v. Pays [(1955) 3 All.ER 10]
 CWT v. Abdul Hussain Mulla Muhammad Ali [(1988)3SCC562]
 Durga Prasad v. Baldeo [ILR (1881) 3 All. 221]
 Kedarnath Bhattacharjee v. Gorie Mohamed [ILR (1886) 14 Cal. 64]
 Doraswami Iyer v. Arunachala Iyer [AIR 1936 Mad. 135]
 Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali
 Dutton v. Poole[1677]
 Tweddle v. Atkinson [1861]
 Dunlop Pnuematic Tyres v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd. [1915 AC 847]
 Beswick v. Beswick
 Chinnaya v. Ramayya [ILR (1876-82) 4 Mad. 137]
 Jamna Das v. Pandit Ram Autar Pande [ILR (1911-12) 34 All. 63]
 Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Nawab Hussaini Begum [(1909-10) 12 Bom.LR
638]
 MC Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore [AIR 1970 SC 504]
 Gregory and Parker v. Williams [(1817) 3 Mer. 582]
 Rana Uma Nath Bakhsh Singh v. Jung Bahadur [AIR 1938 PC 245]
 Daropati v. Jaspat Rai [(1905)(Punj. Rec) 171]
 Kshirodebihari Datta v. Mangobinda Panda [AIR 1934 Cal. 682]
 Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. V. River Douglas Catchment Board [(1949) 2
KB 500]
 Mc Ardle Re: [(1951) 1 All E.R. 905(CA)]
 Lampleigh v. Brathwait
 White v. Bluett [(1853) 23 LJ Ex 36]
 De La Bere v. Pearson Ltd. [(1908) 1 KB 280 (CA)]
 Collins v. Godfroy [(1831) 109 ER 1040]
 Ramachandra Chintaman v. Kalu raju
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 Stilk v. Meyrick [(1809) 2 Camp 317]

 Williams v. Roffey Bros. and Nicholls (Contractor) Ltd [(1991) 1 QB 1]
 Penny v. Cole (Pinnel’s Case) [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a
 Weston foakes v. Julia Beer [(1884) 9 App Cas 605]
 Central London Property Trust Ltd. V. High Tress House Ltd. [(1947) 1 KB
130]
 Combe v. Combe
 Thomas Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. [(1877) 2 AC 439]
 Shadwell v. Shadwell
 Scotsons v. Pegg [158 ER 121]
 Firm Gopal Co. Ltd. V. Firm Hazarilal Co. [AIR 1963 MP 37]
 Rajlukhy Debi v. Bhoothnath Mookherjee [(1899-00) 4 CWN 488]
 Bhima v. Sivaram [(1899) 1 Bom L.R. 495]

Module 3: Capacity to Contract

Unlike module 2 which discusses how the nature of agreement decides its enforceability, the
present module discusses how the particulars of the parties determine the validity of an
agreement. As a general rule under the law of contracts the minors, people of unsound mind
and people disqualified to contract by any law for time being in force are considered
incompetent to contract. The module intends to the discuss the legal approach in developing
the above presumption.

The module further discusses the idea of cancellation of instrument void for lack of capacity
and the possibilities of restitution as discussed under the specific relief act.

Reading

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan (ed.) Pollock and Mulla, The Indian
Contract and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
Case Laws

 Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose (1903) 30 I.A. 114 65

 Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh, AIR 1928 Lah. 609 69
 Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal, AIR 1937 All. 610

Module 4: Free Consent and Vitiating Factors

One of the most important and foremost requirement for an agreement to be a valid contract
is that the parties must be at consensus ad idem (agree to the same thing in the same sense).
On principle, the parties are considered not to be at consensus ad idem if the of the parties are
induced into the contract by way coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and
mistake of existence/ non-existence of any fact fundamental to the agreement. The module
intends to discuss in detail each of the abovementioned five vitiating factors.

The module further discusses the possibilities rescission, restitution and cancellation of
instruments voidable for lack of free consent as discussed under specific relief act and
contract act. The idea of rectification of instruments in cases of mistake also form a part of
discussion under this module.

Reading

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan, Pollock and Mulla on The Indian Contract
and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
 Tom W. Bell, Graduated Consent in Contract and Tort Law: Toward a Theory of
Justification, 61 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 17, 84 (2010)
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 Randy E. Barnett, Contracts is Not Promise; Contract is Consent, 45 Suffolk U.

L. Rev. 647, 666 (2012)
 Mark P. Gergen, Negligent Misrepresentation as Contract, 101(4) California Law
Review, 953-1012(2013)
 Melvin Aron Eisenberg, The Role of Fault in Contract Law: Unconscionability,
Unexpected Circumstances, Interpretation, Mistake, and Nonperformance, 107
Mich. L. Rev. 1413, 1430 (2009)

Case Laws

 Chikkam Amiraju v. Chikkam Sheshama [ILR (1918) 41 Mad. 31]

 Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande [ILR (1888-90) 12 All. 523]
 Williams v. Bayley
 Rani Annapurni v. Swami Natha Chettiar
 Raghunath Prasad Sahu v. Sarju Prasad Sahu [AIR 1924 PC 60]
 Lloyds Bank v. Bundy [(1975) 1 QB 326]
 Universe Tankship[s Inc. v. International Transport Workers Federation
[(1982) 2 All ER 67 (HL)]
 Atlas Exprees Ltd. v. Kafeco Ltd. (1989 QB 833)
 Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. V. Brojo Nath Ganguly [(1986) 3
SCC 156]
 Derry v. Peek [(1889) 14 AC 337]
 DDA v. Skipper Construction Co (P) Ltd. [(2000) 10 SCC 130] or you can read
 With v. O’Flanagan [1936 Ch. 575]
 R. v. Kylsant (1932)
 Bisset v. Wilkinson (1927)
 Edgington v. Fitzmaurice
 Long v. Lloyd [(1958) 2 All.E.R. 402 (CA)]
 Car and Universal Finance Company v. Cladwell [(1965) 1 QB 525]
 Jaggan Nath v. Secy of State for India [(1886) 21 Punj Rec. No 21]
 Boulton v. Jones [(1857) 27 LJ Ex 117]
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 Hardman v. Booth [(1862) 1 H&C 803]

 James Cundy v. Thomas Lindsay [(1878) 3 AC 459]
 King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd. v. Edridge, Merret & Co. Ltd [(1897) 14 TLR 98
(CA)]
 Philips v. Brooks [(1919) 2 KB 243]
 Ingram v. Little [(1961) 1 QB 31]
 Lewis v. Averay [(1971) 3 All.E.R. 907]
 Said v. Butt [(1920) 3 KB 497]
 Gustavus Couturier v. Robert Hastie [(1856) 5 HL Cas 673]
 Raffles v. Wichelhaus [(1864) 2 H&C 906]
 Seikh Bros Ltd. v. Ochsner [(1957) 2 WLR 254 (PC)]
 Smith v. Hughes [1871 LR 6 QB 597]
 Bell v. Lever Bros. Ltd. [1931 All.E.R Rep.1 (112)]
 Great Peace Shipping Ltd. v. Tsalvaris Salvage (International) Limited [2003
QB 679]
 Gallie v. Lee
 Haji Abdul Rahman v. Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Co.

Module 5: Void Agreements

The Indian Law on Contract declares certain agreements to be void in nature. In addition to
agreement having an unlawful consideration or object (which have been discussed in Module
2), these agreements include the agreements in restraint of marriage, agreements in restraint
of trade, agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, agreements void for uncertainty and
agreements by way of wager. This module intends to discuss these statutory provisions and
judicial pronouncements concerning these agreements.

Reading

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan (ed.) Pollock and Mulla, The Indian
Contract and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
 Smith, Stephen A., 'The Kinds of Agreements not Enforced: Substantive
Limitations on Enforceability', Contract Theory (Oxford, 2004; online
edn, Oxford Academic, 22 Mar. 2012)

Cases

 Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brajonath Ganguly AIR 1986 SC

1571
 Madhub Chander v. Gulab Kumar [(1874) 14 Beng.LR 76]
 Nordenfelt v. Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company
 Vancouver Malt and Sake Brewing Co. Vancouver Breweries
 Shaikh Kalu v. Ram Sharan Bhagat
 Esso Petroleum v. Harper’s Garage
 Shell (UK) Ltd. v. Lostock Garage Ltd. (1976)
 Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola [AIR 1953 SC 2372]
 Charlesworth v. MacDonald [ILR (1898) 23 Bom. 103]
 VN Deshpande v. Arvind Mills
 Niranjan Shanker v. Century Mfg. Co. Ltd.
 Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ltd. v. E. Scarth
 Superintendence Co. of India v. Krishan Mulgai [(1981) 2 SCC 246]

PART II: DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT

Module 6: Discharge by Performance & Mutual Agreement

The module intends to discuss the next obvious step after the formation of contract viz. the
performance of obligations by the parties. The discussion under this module shall revolve
around mode of performance of contract, Notice of performance, time and place of
performance, performance of reciprocal promises.
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

It would be an attempt to devote most of hours allotted to this module to the doctrine of
frustration, Doctrine of novation, alteration and rescission of contract. We intend to discuss
the common law origin of each of these doctrines and how the doctrines are carried forward
by the judges and embodied in the Indian Law. The emphasis shall further be laid on areas
where the Indian law notably departs from the Common Law Principles.

The module further aims to discuss the idea of restitution in cases of frustration of contracts
as enshrined under the contract act and specific relief act.

Readings

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan (ed.) Pollock and Mulla, The Indian
Contract and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
 Melvin A. Eisenberg, Unexpected circumstances in Contract Law: Impossibility,
Impracticability, And Frustration (November 28, 2017),
www.csecl.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/subsites/centre-for-the-study-of-
european-contract-law/map-1/2008-05-19_eisenberg_unexpected-circusmstances-
amsterdam.doc

Suggested Readings

 Arthur Anderson, Frustration of Contract - A Rejected Doctrine, 3 DePaul L. Rev.

1, 22 (1953)

Case Laws

 Bhudra Chand v Betts (1915) 22 Cal LJ 566

 Taylor v. Cladwell [(1863) 3 B&S 826]
 Krell v. Henry [(1903) 2 KB 740]
 Sachindra Nath v. Gopal Chandra [AIR 1949 Cal. 240]
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 Howell v. Coupland [(1876) 1 QBD 258]

 Herne Bay Steam Boat Co. v. Hutton [(1903) 2 KB 683]
 Robinson v. Davison [(1871) LR 6 Exch 269]
 Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur [AIR 1954 SC 44]
 Tsakiorglou & Co. Ltd. v. Noblee & Thorl GMBH [1962 AC 93]
 Manohur Koyal v. Thakurdas Naskar (1888) ILR 15 Cal 319
 Ellon v. Topp (1851) 6 Exch 424
 M. Sham Singh v State of Mysore (1973) 2 SCC 303
 Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim [1950] 1 KB 616

Module 7: Discharge by Breach and Remedy of Damages

The module concerns itself with another mode of Discharge from the obligations of the
contract viz. discharge by the breach of contract.. The discussions around breach of contract
shall encapsulate the two kinds of breach recognized by the common law viz. Anticipatory
Breach of Contract and Actual Breach.

The module would further discuss the remedies which are available to the aggrieved party on
breach. The common law principles requires that the party so aggrieved should be put back
into the same position as it would have been had the contract been performed. The law meets
the ends of the above mentioned principles through the remedy of damages. The Indian law
as an alternative to Damages also grants a routine remedy of specific performance of
contract.

Reading

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan (ed.) Pollock and Mulla, The Indian
Contract and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 Melvin A. Eisenberg, Actual and Virtual Specific Performance, the Theory of

Efficient Breach, and the Indifference Principle in Contract Law, 93(4) California
Law Review, 975-1050 (2005)
 Steven J. Burton, Breach of Contract and the Common Law Duty to Perform in
Good Faith, 94(2) Harvard Law Review 369-404 (1980)
 Mara Kent, The Common-Law History of Non-Economic Damages in Breach of
Contract Actions versus Willful Breach of Contract Actions, 11 Tex. Wesleyan L.
Rev. 481, 504 (2005)
 Alan Schwartz, The case for Specific Performance, 89(2) the Yale Law Journal,
271-306 (1979)

 Rowan, Solène, 'Compulsion', Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative

Analysis of the Protection of Performance (Oxford, 2012; online edn, Oxford
Academic, 24 May 2012)

Case Laws

 Hochester v. De La Tour [95 RR 747]

 Frost v. Knight [(1872) 1 Exch 111]
 Avery v Bowden (1855)
 Fercometal v. Mediterranian Shipping Co.
 Maple Flock Co. Ltd. v. Universal Furniture Products (1934)
 JuggilalKamplapat v. Pratapmal Rameshwar (1978)
 Hadley v. Baxendale (1843-60) All ER Rep. 461 172
 Simpsons v. London and North Western Railway Co. (1876)
 Madras Railway Co. Govinda Rau (1898)
 Fazl Illahi v. East Indian Railway Co. (1921)
 Robinson V. Harman (1848)
 Karsandas H. Thacker v. M/s. The Saran Engineering Co. Ltd., AIR 1965 SC
1981 178
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

 British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co v. Underground Electric

Railway Co. of London
 Ruxley Electronics and Constructions Ltd. v. Forsyth (1996)
 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres v. New Garrage [1915] AC 79
 Cellulose Acetate Silk Co. v. Widness Foundry [1933] AC 20
 Chunilal V Mehta v. Century Spg and Mfg Mills AIR 1962 SC 1314
 Fateh Chand v Balkishan Das AIR 1963 SC 1405
 Maula Bux v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1955 182
 Shri Hanuman Cotton Mills v. Tata Air Craft Ltd 1969 (3) SCC 522 186.

PART III: RELATION RESEMBLING TO THOSE OF CONTRACTS

Module 8: Quasi Contracts

The module intends to deal with certain relations which are not contracts in their strict sense
but resemble to those created by contracts. Sections 68 to 71 of the Indian Contract Act
enumerates such circumstances where two parties are deemed to be in contract by way of
legal fiction in order to ensure that none is unjustly enriched at the cost of the other.

The module intends to discuss the in the concept of unjust enrichment under common law
and the statutory provisions in light of the doctrine.

Reading

 Rajesh Kapoor, Avtar Singh’s Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book
Company (2022)
 Varun Malik, Avtar Singh’s Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern
Book Company (2022)
 R Yashodvardhan and Chitra Narayan (ed.) Pollock and Mulla, The Indian
Contract and Specific Relief Act, Lexis Nexis (2019)
 N.L., On the Theory of Implied Contracts, 4 (6) The American Law Register ,
321-334 (1852-1881)
 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

PROGRAMME OUTCOME:
PO1- Professional Competence Demonstrate competence and capacity to read statutes,
understand precedents, identify legal issues, draft legal documents and apply legal knowledge
to practical legal problems. Appreciate and inculcate moral and ethical responsibilities of the
noble profession of an advocate.

PO2 - Social Justice and Rule of Law Uphold the rule of law and promote the constitutional
values and objectives of social justice.

PO3- Critical Thinking and Reflections Contribute to legal scholarship through critical
appraisal of laws and theories including their application in various socio-legal contexts.

PO4-Creative Problem Solving Predict, mitigate, and solve complex problems and engage
in conflict resolution by adopting context-appropriate inclusive methods.

PO5 – Advocacy Capacity to participate and influence deliberations on issues of local,

national or international importance using broader advocacy skills of an individual trained in
law.

CO-PO MAPPING:
Course Programme Outcomes
Outcomes PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5
CO1 
CO2 
CO3   
CO4 
CO5  

CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR COURSE OUTLINE

 NALSAR University of Law
Justice City :: Shameerpet :: Hyderabad

Examination Section

1. Addition of book chapter, Martin A Hogg, Competing Thoeries of Contract An

Emerging Consensus?, in COMMERCIAL CONTRACT LAW TRANSATLANTIC
PERSPECTIVES 14 (Larry A. DiMatteo, qi Zhou, Severine Sainter, Keith Rowley
eds., 2013), under the Module 1 of the course.

2. Addition of book chapter, Atiyah, P. S., 'Consideration: A Restatement', Essays on

Contract, Clarendon Paperbacks (Oxford, 1990; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22
Mar. 2012), under the Module 2 of the course.

3. Addition of book chapter, Smith, Stephen A., 'The Kinds of Agreements not
Enforced: Substantive Limitations on Enforceability', Contract
Theory (Oxford, 2004; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 Mar. 2012), under Module 5
of the course.

4. Addition of book chapter, Rowan, Solène, 'Compulsion', Remedies for Breach of

Contract: A Comparative Analysis of the Protection of Performance (Oxford, 2012;
online edn, Oxford Academic, 24 May 2012), under Module 7 of the course.

5. Addition of article, N.L., On the Theory of Implied Contracts, 4 (6) The American
Law Register , 321-334 (1852-1881), under Module 8 of the course.