| Section | Rule / Meaning | Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| 2(a) | A proposal (offer) means one person shows willingness to do or not do something to get the agreement of another person. | Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Harvey v Facey Fitch v Snedaker State of Madras v Gannon Dunkerley & Co. |
| 2(b) | When the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to it, the proposal becomes a promise. | Felthouse v Bindley Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. |
| 2(c) | The person who makes the proposal is called the promisor, and the person who accepts it is the promisee. | Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Balfour v Balfour |
| 2(d) | Consideration means something of value given in return for a promise. It may be an act, a promise, or stopping an act. | Chinnaya v Ramayya Currie v Misa Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mohammad Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge |
| 2(e) | An agreement is when two or more persons make promises to each other. | Balfour v Balfour Rose & Frank Co v J.R. Crompton & Bros Ltd |
| 2(h) | A contract is an agreement that the law will enforce (legally binding agreement). | Balfour v Balfour Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Rose & Frank Co v J.R. Crompton & Bros Ltd |
| 4 | Explains when communication of offer, acceptance, and revocation (taking back) is complete. | Adams v Lindsell Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v Girdharilal Parshottamdas |
| 5 | A proposal or acceptance may be revoked (taken back) before communication of acceptance is complete. | Byrne v Van Tienhoven Payne v Cave Henthorn v Fraser |
| 6 | Lists the ways a proposal can end, such as revocation, lapse of time, or rejection. | Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore Hyde v Wrench |
| 7 | Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified (complete agreement without changes). | Hyde v Wrench Union of India v Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram |
| 8 | Performing the conditions of a proposal is also acceptance. | Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt |
| 9 | Promises may be express (spoken or written) or implied (shown by conduct or behaviour). | Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. State of West Bengal v B.K. Mondal |
| 10 | An agreement becomes a valid contract if it has free consent, lawful consideration, lawful object, and competent parties. | Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose Balfour v Balfour Rose & Frank Co v J.R. Crompton & Bros Ltd |
| 11 | Only persons who are major (adult), of sound mind, and not disqualified by law can enter into contracts. | Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose Nash v Inman |
| 12 | A person is of sound mind if he understands the contract and can judge its effect on his interests. | Inder Singh v Parmeshwardhari Singh Imperial Loan Co v Stone |
| 13 | Consent means the parties agree on the same thing in the same sense (same understanding). | Raffles v Wichelhaus Smith v Hughes |
| 14 | Consent is free when it is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. | Chikkam Ammiraju v Chikkam Seshamma Derry v Peek Raghunath Prasad v Sarju Prasad |
| 15 | Coercion means forcing someone to enter a contract by threat or illegal act. | Chikkam Ammiraju v Chikkam Seshamma Barton v Armstrong |
| 16 | Undue influence happens when one party uses a position of power to unfairly influence another party. | Raghunath Prasad v Sarju Prasad Allcard v Skinner Williams v Bayley |
| 17 | Fraud means intentional deception (lying or hiding facts) to make another person enter a contract. | Derry v Peek Peek v Gurney Smith v Chadwick |
| 18 | Misrepresentation means giving false information by mistake that makes another person enter the contract. | Redgrave v Hurd With v O'Flanagan Smith v Land & House Property Corp. |
| 19 | A contract caused by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation is voidable (can be cancelled by the affected party). | Derry v Peek Long v Lloyd |
| 20 | An agreement is void if both parties are mistaken about an important fact of the agreement. | Couturier v Hastie Bell v Lever Bros Ltd |
| 21 | A mistake about law of the country does not make a contract void. | Bilbie v Lumley |
| 23 | Consideration or object must be lawful (not illegal or against public interest). | Gherulal Parakh v Mahadeodas Maiya Pearce v Brooks Central Inland Water Transport Corp v Brojo Nath Ganguly |
| 24 | If part of the consideration or object is unlawful, the whole agreement may become void. | Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns |
| 25 | An agreement without consideration is generally void, with a few exceptions. | Kedarnath Bhattacharji v Gorie Mohammad Abdul Aziz v Masum Ali Currie v Misa |
| 26 | Agreements in restraint of marriage (stopping a person from marrying) are void. | Lowe v Peers |
| 27 | Agreements in restraint of trade (stopping a person from doing business) are void. | Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd v Coca Cola Co |
| 28 | Agreements that restrict legal proceedings (going to court) are void. | Food Corporation of India v New India Assurance Co. A.V.M. Sales Corp v Anuradha Chemicals |
| 29 | Agreements with uncertain meaning are void. | Scammell v Ouston |
| 30 | Wagering agreements (betting agreements) are void. | Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Gherulal Parakh v Mahadeodas Maiya |
| 68 | A person who supplies necessaries (basic needs) to a minor can be reimbursed from the minor's property. | Nash v Inman Chapple v Cooper |
| 69 | A person who pays money that another person is legally required to pay can recover the money. | Brook’s Wharf v Goodman Bros |
| 70 | If a person lawfully does something for another and expects payment, the other person must compensate. | State of West Bengal v B.K. Mondal Damodar Mudaliar v Secretary of State |
| 71 | A finder of lost goods has rights similar to a bailee (person temporarily holding goods). | Hollins v Fowler Armory v Delamirie |
| 72 | Money or goods received by mistake or coercion must be returned. | Sales Tax Officer v Kanhaiya Lal Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd |