Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    PGPM' 21-Lab - Mid Term QP

    Uploaded by

    CHANDAN GUPTA
    1. Raman showed Ravi samples of cotton and Ravi placed an order for 10,000 bales. When Ravi did not take delivery, Raman resold the cotton. Ravi argued Raman was not the owner. 2. A dispute arose over whether time was essential in a contract between X Ltd. and Y Ltd. for cotton supply. Y Ltd. filed suit and X Ltd. argued the case should be sent to arbitration. 3. P and Q contracted for P to ship cotton seeds by a specific ship. When the ship became unusable, P did not deliver on time. P argued the contract was discharged by supervening impossibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PGPM' 21-Lab - Mid Term QP

    Uploaded by

    CHANDAN GUPTA
    78 views2 pages
    1. Raman showed Ravi samples of cotton and Ravi placed an order for 10,000 bales. When Ravi did not take delivery, Raman resold the cotton. Ravi argued Raman was not the owner. 2. A dispute arose over whether time was essential in a contract between X Ltd. and Y Ltd. for cotton supply. Y Ltd. filed suit and X Ltd. argued the case should be sent to arbitration. 3. P and Q contracted for P to ship cotton seeds by a specific ship. When the ship became unusable, P did not deliver on time. P argued the contract was discharged by supervening impossibility.

    Original Description:

    Marketing

    Original Title

    Pgpm' 21-Lab - Mid Term Qp

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Raman showed Ravi samples of cotton and Ravi placed an order for 10,000 bales. When Ravi did not take delivery, Raman resold the cotton. Ravi argued Raman was not the owner. 2. A dispute arose over whether time was essential in a contract between X Ltd. and Y Ltd. for cotton supply. Y Ltd. filed suit and X Ltd. argued the case should be sent to arbitration. 3. P and Q contracted for P to ship cotton seeds by a specific ship. When the ship became unusable, P did not deliver on time. P argued the contract was discharged by supervening impossibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    PGPM' 21-Lab - Mid Term QP

    Uploaded by

    CHANDAN GUPTA
    1. Raman showed Ravi samples of cotton and Ravi placed an order for 10,000 bales. When Ravi did not take delivery, Raman resold the cotton. Ravi argued Raman was not the owner. 2. A dispute arose over whether time was essential in a contract between X Ltd. and Y Ltd. for cotton supply. Y Ltd. filed suit and X Ltd. argued the case should be sent to arbitration. 3. P and Q contracted for P to ship cotton seeds by a specific ship. When the ship became unusable, P did not deliver on time. P argued the contract was discharged by supervening impossibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Management Development Institute Murshidabad (MDIM)

    Post Graduate Programme in Management (PGPM)


    Term- I
    Course: Legal Aspects of Business (LAB)
    (Closed Book Examination)
    Max. Marks: 25 Time: 2 Hrs.

    Instructions
    * Solve all the questions provided at the end of each case study and cite relevant legal provisions in
    support of your answer.
    * Give clear and brief but, adequately elaborated answers.

    Brief Case Study 1


    Ravi, the buyer visited the gowdowns of Raman to select the quality of cotton. Raman showed
    him some samples of different variety of cotton available with him. Ravi chose one and put the
    order to purchase 10,000 bales of chosen variety of cotton. Cotton bales were separated and
    packed in Ravi’s presence. Even after a number of reminders sent by Raman, Ravi did not take
    the delivery of the goods. Raman after giving a notice of resale to Ravi, sold the cotton bales to
    Abhay. Ravi dragged Raman to court for wrong sale and argued that property in goods got
    transferred to him at the time of sale and thus Raman was not the owner of the goods anymore.

    Questions

    1. Was Raman guilty of wrong sale as he was no more the true owner of the sold goods? Why or
    why not. (5 Marks)

    2. Which rule of transfer of property provided under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was applied in
    this case? Explain. (2.5 Marks)

    Brief Case Study 2

    X Ltd. agreed to supply 1000 bales of cotton to Y Ltd. at an agreed price within two weeks of
    formation of the contract. Besides other terms and conditions of the written contract, there was
    an agreement between the parties for settling the dispute related to quality and merchantable
    value of the cotton through arbitration. X Ltd. failed to supply the cotton within stipulated time
    and there arose a dispute between the parties about the fact whether “time was an essence” of the
    contract or not. Y Ltd. filed a civil suit for damages for the breach of contract. X Ltd. argued
    that the case should be dismissed by the court as there was an arbitration agreement between the
    parties and hence the arbitrator should be appointed to settle this dispute. Should the case be
    dismissed? Why or why not.

    1
    Discussion Point
    1. Should the case be dismissed? Why or why not. Explain in the light of relevant provisions of
    the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. (5 Marks)

    2. Under what circumstances, the arbitral award be challenged in the court of law? Elaborate on
    any four such situations. (2.5 Marks)

    Case Study 3

    Mr. P and Mr. Q entered into a contract of sale of goods. Under the contract, P was to sell a
    cargo of cotton seeds to Q. P and Q belonged to two different countries. It was agreed between
    the parties that the contract between two of them would be governed by the law of India. The
    price of cotton sends was negotiated and fixed. It was agreed between that P will ship the cargo
    of cotton seeds by a specific ship named “Dragon” in the month of July that year. Before the
    cargo could be shipped on “Dragon” in month of July, the authorities declared the ship to be not
    fit to sail hence incapacitated as to be unable to load by the agreed time. The cargo could not be
    shipped on time and Q being aggrieved by this breach dragged P to the court for breach of
    contract.

    Q alleged P to be guilty of breach of contract as did not deliver the cargo in the agreed time
    period. Q demanded damages for his loss of business as a consequence of breach of contract. On
    the other hand, P contended in the court that the contract got discharged by supervening
    impossibility and hence he was not liable to pay any damages for the breach of contract.

    Questions

    1. Was the contract discharged on account of supervening impossibility? Support your answer
    with relevant provisions under the Indian Contract Act, 1871. (5 Marks)

    2. Would it make any difference to your answer if P had not named the ship? Why or Why not?
    (5 Marks)

    You might also like