Search results

The digital medium has created new ways of contracting through web pages and smartphone apps. The websites and apps put numerous terms of contract. In some cases, the user is required to click on them, and other times, the user may or may not even notice the terms. Are the terms put by the sites and apps binding? The case explores the theme with the Uber Case, a judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the application of the terms in the Uber app.

A person can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for a violation of a Fundamental Right. The Fundamental Rights, however, are available only against the bodies which are ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University extends the ambit of Article 226 to all bodies, whether governmental or private, which are performing ‘public function’ or ‘public duty’. Imparting education is taken to be a public function. The judgement opens new dimensions of constitutional law

The case deals with the issues of technology transfer and protection of intellectual property in an international contract, with the International commercial arbitration as the dispute resolution method. The case highlights the distrust between parties when they do not want to continue doing business together and the use of legal technicalities to delay the matter from settling and utter confusion due to international nature of contract, multiple court proceedings in different countries and even questioning the status of the contract – whether a concluded contract or not.

The Supreme Court judgement, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority consolidates the law on award of liquidated damages and stipulations on penalties. Contractual damages are to cover losses and not to profit from or penalise the party in breach. Stipulated amounts in damages or penalties are appraised by the courts and only a reasonable compensation is given. Earnest money, and its forfeiture, stood distinct. It could be forfeited without appraisal. The case integrates the different categories and re-states the principles for award of damages.

The case discusses the legal journey of the Bajaj — TVS patent dispute from the Madras High Court to the Supreme Court and back to the Madras High Court. Almost four years have passed, yet the final verdict is nowhere in sight. The Supreme Court has recommended a period of four months for such cases to be finally decided. In such instances, the warring parties either settle it out of court or adopt other means to do business. The value of patent is undermined if the patentee has to fight so much for its protection.

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to its citizens. This freedom is not absolute and the State can impose reasonable restrictions. Of late, certain incidents have shown this freedom to be under threat. The case highlights some of such events. It makes the readers think about the importance of this right, reasonableness of restrictions, and the measures needed to protect it.

A buyer company has an advance payment stuck with the seller company and acts cautiously in not paying further till they get control over the goods. Claiming this to be a breach, the seller terminates the contract and makes claim for the damages. The seller picks all legal points it could in the routine business practices to escape the unfortunate situation. The judgment in the Toba Trade Case gives a comprehensive view of several legal themes including, payment and delivery, variation of contract, termination, anticipatory breach, award of damages and unjust enrichment.

The Mercini Lady Case is a modern statement of the law on the rights of the buyer in a sale contract. The seller has to supply goods in conformity with description, of merchantable quality and fit for the stated use. These rights, the ‘implied conditions’, however, can be ousted by express terms in the contract. The Court of Appeal judgement of the UK keenly considered that the exclusion clause should be interpreted in its business sense. However, it sided with precedence established over hundred years that the exclusion clauses take away valuable rights of the buyer and must be strictly and technically constructed.