An agreement is necessary to form a legally binding contract. Mr. Pushkar made the highest bid of 75 lakhs for a property auctioned by Mr. Ayush, but Mr. Ayush did not accept the bid due to doubts about Mr. Pushkar's ability to pay. Mr. Pushkar sued Mr. Ayush, claiming a contract had been formed when he made the highest bid. However, the court ruled that auctions are invitations to offer, not binding agreements, and no contract was formed since Mr. Ayush refused the offer. Therefore, Mr. Ayush won the suit.
An agreement is necessary to form a legally binding contract. Mr. Pushkar made the highest bid of 75 lakhs for a property auctioned by Mr. Ayush, but Mr. Ayush did not accept the bid due to doubts about Mr. Pushkar's ability to pay. Mr. Pushkar sued Mr. Ayush, claiming a contract had been formed when he made the highest bid. However, the court ruled that auctions are invitations to offer, not binding agreements, and no contract was formed since Mr. Ayush refused the offer. Therefore, Mr. Ayush won the suit.
An agreement is necessary to form a legally binding contract. Mr. Pushkar made the highest bid of 75 lakhs for a property auctioned by Mr. Ayush, but Mr. Ayush did not accept the bid due to doubts about Mr. Pushkar's ability to pay. Mr. Pushkar sued Mr. Ayush, claiming a contract had been formed when he made the highest bid. However, the court ruled that auctions are invitations to offer, not binding agreements, and no contract was formed since Mr. Ayush refused the offer. Therefore, Mr. Ayush won the suit.
An agreement is necessary to form a legally binding contract. Mr. Pushkar made the highest bid of 75 lakhs for a property auctioned by Mr. Ayush, but Mr. Ayush did not accept the bid due to doubts about Mr. Pushkar's ability to pay. Mr. Pushkar sued Mr. Ayush, claiming a contract had been formed when he made the highest bid. However, the court ruled that auctions are invitations to offer, not binding agreements, and no contract was formed since Mr. Ayush refused the offer. Therefore, Mr. Ayush won the suit.
The presence of an agreement is the first requirement for the fo _
mation of a legally binding contract. Mr Ayush puts up a propert for sale at an auction. Mr Pushkar makes a bid off 75 lakhs, whic~ was the highest bid. Mr Ayush did not accept the bid because he was doubtful of the ability of Mr Pushkar to pay the amount of the bid. This matter was brought to the court, where Mr Pushkar was the plaintiff and Mr Ayush was the defendant. Mr Pushkar claimed that he and Mr Ayush had entered into a legally binding contract be9ause he had made the highest bid. The court heard both the parties and pronounced the following judge- ment: Bidders at any auction are entitled to make an offer but that offer may or ·may not be accepted by the seller. In other words, auctions are an invitation to offer. Therefore, it was held that no agreement was reached because the seller refused the offer made by Mr Pushkar. The court held that no legally enforceable contract was entered into because there was a lack of agreement. Mr Ayush won the suit. Hence, an invitation to offer does not give rise to any rights or obligations.