Question 2 (a) part iii

Promise to pay the rescuer's son

3 marks

Time to write
About 6 minutes

From an older CBCS paper

Question

Question 2 (a) part iii · 3 marks
  1. A saved B from a serious car accident at the risk of his own life. B promises to pay ₹ 12,000 to C (Son of A). B fails to pay. Can C recover ₹ 12,000 from B ?

Reworded from the university paper; the task is the same. The original paper belongs to the University of Delhi. See DU's question bank.

Before you write

Read off the question and its marks

6 minfor 3 marks

Read from the question

  • Can C recover…?A case problem: state the rule and its section, apply it to these facts, then answer in one line (yes or no, and why).

What the paper leaves open

  1. does not say to whom B makes the promise; it is read as made to C, the person to be paid. Marked as one question of 9 marks; answered here in 3 parts of 3 marks each (marks inferred).

Write it in this order

  1. 1 (iii) C's claim 3 marks 6 min

Try it first. About 6 minutes for 3 marks. Write it out, then open the solution.

Solution

Hover or tap a marked figure, like 72,000, to see how it is made and where else it appears.

(iii) C's claim. B's promise is read as made to C (paper note).

  1. No consideration in the ordinary sense. Past consideration is valid only if the act was done at the promisor's desire. A pulled B from the accident on his own initiative, not at B's request, so the rescue is not consideration for B's later promise.
  2. The exception for past voluntary service (s. 25(2)) does not help C. A promise made without consideration still binds where its purpose is to make good, in whole or in part, to the very person who has already done something for the promisor of his own accord. The person who did something for B is A. B's promise is to pay C, not to compensate A, so it falls outside the exception.
  3. No other ground. With no consideration and no exception, B's promise to C is a bare promise, an agreement without consideration, which is void (s. 25).

Conclusion. C cannot recover ₹ 12,000 from B.

The other reading. It might be argued that B's promise was his way of compensating A, made through A's son, so that C could claim the ₹ 12,000. The section does not support that argument: s. 25(2) saves only a promise to compensate the person who has himself voluntarily done something for the promisor, and that person, A, is not the one to whom B promised. The main answer stands: C cannot recover.

Where the 3 marks sit

#ComponentMarks
1(iii) C's claim3
Total3
Keyboard: ← → previous and next question, / search

Report a problemopens an email to admin@getkunji.com with the question ID1202-Q2aiiialready filled in.