2. DURGA PRASAD VS. BALDEO (1880)
• Facts:
• Durga Prasad – plaintiff of the case- a contractor
• Baldeo – shopkeeper – defender
• Durga Prasad requested the DISTRICT COLLECTOR to build up market for local
vendors.
• Baldeo- stated to Durga Prasad if market was build I will pay you 5% commission on
turnover.
• After the market was build baldeo refused to pay commission.
DURGA PRASAD filed a case against BALDEO.
3. ISSUES
• Whether the agreement between defendant and plaintiff is valid?
• Whether the agreement enforceable by law?
4.
5. RULES
• As per sec 25 of Contract act 1872 an agreement which is made without any
specifications about the consideration is VOID .
• On the other hand as per interpretation of sec 2(d), consideration of a contract is
fixed by the promisor. Therefore promisor fixes the consideration and without it
contract is void.
6. CONCLUSION
• The consideration must move at the desire of the promisor .
• The court declared that the Agreement is void as consideration is not fixed by
the promisor.
• Therefore Baldeo has no liability to pay Durga Prasad Commission in lieu of
construction of shops.
• Consideration is a essential part of a contract and without specifying it a contract
is void.
7. KADARNATH VS. GORIE MOHAMMAD( 1886)
• Kadarnath Bhattacharji- plaintiff – municipal Commissioner – Trustee of Howrah
townhall fund
• He wanted to build a Town hall in Howrah so he collected funds from public and he,
public subscribers including defender ( Gorie mohammad) are in a contract.
• Kadarnath make a contract with a contractor to construct a townhall And during the
process the amount was increased from ₹25000- ₹40000 .
• Therefore every one in the contract with contracter agreed to pay the additional
amount but the agreed to pay ₹100 and wrote his name in subscription book but
didn’t pay.
• KADARNATH filed a suit against MOHAMMED for recovery of amount.
8. ISSUES
• Is the case maintainable?
• Is the defendant bound to indemnify the Sum of money?
• Was there a valid contract between two parties?
9. RULES
• Section ( 25) of INDIAN CONTACT ACT (1872) says that Agreement without
consideration is void unless it is in writing and registered or a promise to
compensate for something done Or in a promise to pay a time bared debt by
limitation law And it is made in the account of natural love and affection between
parties Standing in near relation to each other ; or unless it is a promise to
compensate Wholly or a part,who has already voluntarily done something For the
promisor Or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do; or
unless It is a promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged
therewith, or By his agent generally and specially authorised in its behalf To pay
wholly or part of the debt Of which creditor may enforced payment .But for the law
For limitation of suits. In any cases such an agreement is a contract.
10. CONCLUSION
• He defendant GORIE MOHAMMAD know the purpose for which He paying while he was opted for
subscription .
• He was very well aware of the Fact that he was putting his money towards A charitable cause When he
opted of the subscription,so that is a enough consideration.
• The court ruled that ,based on the subscription Chosen by people like GORIE MOHAMMAD ,the
commissioner was liable to pay the contract work.
• So for the commissioner,the faith of the subscribers was the consideration ,and the consideration for
GORRIE MOHAMMAD ,he willingly agreed to contribute his money for the purpose . Therefore there is
a valid contract
• The decision Was given in favour of kadarnath ,that GORIE MOHAMMAD Cannot opt out of subscribers
list after Making a promise.
• Therefore he was liable for the promise he made.
