A contract is interpreted according to its purpose. The purpose of a contract is the interests, objectives, values, policy that the contract is designed to actualise. It comprises the joint intent of the parties. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties’ private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with the character of purposive interpretation, the court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time of the contract so formed. It is not the intent of a single party; it is the joint intent of both the parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation.
As a matter of fact, what was agreed in the Principles of Agreement more amount than that has been ordered to be paid on the basis of principles of business equilibrium and other factors
It is thus to be seen that under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act the definition of the words “Works contract” is very wide. It is not restricted to a “Works contract” as commonly understood, i.e., a contract to do some work on behalf of somebody else. It also includes “any agreement for carrying out either for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration, the building and construction of any moveable and immoveable property” (Emphasis supplied). The definition would, therefore, take within its ambit any type of agreement wherein construction of a building takes place either for cash or deferred payment, or valuable consideration. To be also noted that the definition does not lay down that the construction must be on behalf of an owner of the property or that the construction cannot be by the owner of the property. Thus, even if an owner of property enters into an agreement to construct for cash, deferred payment or valuable consideration a building or flats on behalf of anybody else it would be a Works contract within the meaning of the term as used under the said Act
ne can Complain that the label did not contain “best before date” and hence the food item was misbranded, as it contravened R.32(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Since the item involved in this case was having a short shelf life of less than three months, it was necessary to mention only the date of manufacture on the label. Therefore, the only violation alleged by the Public Analyst was that instead of showing “best before date” on the label, the food item in this case had the label “assurance 30 days”.
I may now consider as to whether by writing the words ‘assurance 30 days’ instead of ‘best before date’, it would contravene R.32(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. By using the words “best before date”, the meaning intended to be conveyed is that the consumer must use it before that date. I may now examine whether the public would be misguided by writing the words “assurance 30 days” instead of writing ‘best before date’ on the label. For that purpose, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the word “assurance”. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, fourth edition, the word ‘assurance’ in contract means “making secure” or “insure”. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Ninth Edition, the synonym of the word ‘assurance’ is ‘guarantee’. Therefore, even though the terminology found in ‘assurance 30 days’ and ‘best before date’, differs in appearance, actually, no consumer would definitely be misguided, if he happens to see the words ‘assurance 30 days’. In the said circumstances, even if the words ‘best before date’ are not there and instead, the words assurance 30 days’ are there, it will not, in any way mislead the consumer, and hence by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the product had been misbranded, particularly when the product was not adulterated.
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 -Rule 3(xiii-a) defines ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ thus:
Excess Royalty Collection Contract” means a contract for specified mineral(s) and area given to collect royalty in excess of annual dead rent, on behalf of the Government from the holder of mining lease (s) under the contract whereunder the contractor shall pay a fixed amount annually to the Government as per terms of the contract.
‘Royalty Collection Contract’ is defined in Clause (xxi) of Rule 3 as follows:
Royalty Collection Contract” means a contract for the specific mineral or minerals given to collect royalty [with or without permit fee as the case may be] on behalf of the Government from the quarry licensees and short term permit holders who excavate minor minerals from the lands specified under the contract whereunder the contractor undertakes to pay fixed amount annually to the Government save as exempted under Rule 58;
Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925. The words ‘ready delivery contract’ has been defined in Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the said Act which reads as under: (4) ‘ready delivery contract’ […]
The observation of Lord Wright (on this subject) while delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in Mount Albert Borough Council v. Aus. T. and G Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. (1937) […]
Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, LXXIV of 1952, a ‘Forward Contract’ means a contract for the delivery of goods at a future date and which is not a ready delivery contract. A ‘Ready […]
Here we collected all the unique English words used by the legislature for constituting and drafting The Indian Contract Act. We shall gradually explain the use and inherent meaning attached to each […]
(a) Every vakalatnama in any cause, appeal or matter shall be executed by the party: Provided that a person, other than a party to the cause, appeal or matter, may file vakalatnama on the […]
What makes an agreement, which is otherwise legal, void is that its performance is impossible except by disobedience of law.
In Shri Lachoo Mal v. Shri Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 619 this Court while deciding whether an agreement was void and not enforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contact Act […]
A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2013)10SCC114 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chembur Service Station,(2011)3SCC710 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd.,(2008)13SCC597 Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Union of […]
KEYWORDS:- termination of contract- DATE:-March 09, 2018 When there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, without a joint memo or a joint application of the parties, the High Court ought not to […]
KEYWORDS:-APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR-STANDARD FORM OF CONTRACT- DATE:-January 05, 2018- Though general reference to an earlier contract is not sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause in the later contract, a general reference […]
Indian Contract Act 1872 Section 28 of the Contract Act was introduced on the recommendation of the Law Commission in order to remove the anomalies created by the earlier Act. The position of […]