DU Solved Question Papers
Business Laws
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.Com. (Programme) · Sem 1
Jan 2024 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.Com. (Programme) Sem 1 Business Laws Jan 2024 Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 26 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of University of Delhi. It is not affiliated with University of Delhi, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by University of Delhi at the Jan 2024 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as University of Delhi set it at the Jan 2024 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Jan 2024 examination, reproduced as University of Delhi set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 90 · 20 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
a and b, OR the second a and b · 18 Marks
(a)State with reasons whether the following statements are true or false :[12]
- (i) A stranger to a consideration cannot sue.
- (ii) A minor can ratify contracts.
- (iii) Anything done in ignorance of offer does not amount to acceptance.
Answer
For full marks, cover: for each statement, the verdict, the section and reasoning, and a case. (i) section 2(d) ("the promisee or any other person"), Chinnaya v. Ramayya, the difference between a stranger to the consideration and a stranger to the contract; (ii) section 11, Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, why ratification is impossible, and the possibility of a fresh contract; (iii) sections 2(b), 3 and 8, Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, and the reasoning; a conclusion.
(i) A stranger to a consideration cannot sue
False.
Under Indian law, consideration may move from the promisee "or any other person" (section 2(d)). So a person who is a party to the contract can sue on it, even though the consideration came from someone else.
In Chinnaya v. Ramayya, (1882) ILR 4 Mad 137, an old woman gifted her property to her daughter. She did so on condition that the daughter pay an annual sum to the old woman's brother. On the same day the daughter promised the brother in writing to pay it. When she failed, the brother sued. The court held that he could recover. Consideration had moved from his sister, and section 2(d) allows consideration from "any other person".
The position is different in English law, where consideration must move from the promisee. Indian law deliberately departs from that rule.
A stranger to the consideration must be kept apart from a stranger to the contract. A stranger to the contract, who is not a party to it at all, generally cannot sue. In M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore, AIR 1970 SC 504, the Supreme Court held that a person who is not a party to a contract cannot enforce its terms, subject to the recognised exceptions.
So the statement is false. A stranger to the consideration can sue, if a party to the contract.
The Indian rule is fairer in family arrangements of this kind. A parent often gives property to one child on condition that the child supports another relative. Under Indian law the relative, who is promised the support, can enforce the promise. English law long refused such claims, which is why it later had to create exceptions by statute.
(ii) A minor can ratify contracts
False.
A minor is a person who has not attained the age of majority, which is eighteen years under the Indian Majority Act, 1875. Section 11 says that only persons of the age of majority are competent to contract.
In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, (1903) 30 IA 114, a minor mortgaged his property to a moneylender to secure a loan. The Privy Council held that a minor's agreement is absolutely void, not merely voidable. No contract ever came into existence, and the moneylender could not recover.
Ratification means adopting, at a later date, an act that was already capable of being made binding. A void agreement is nothing in law, so there is nothing to ratify. On attaining majority, the former minor cannot ratify an agreement made during minority.
A person may, however, make a fresh contract after attaining majority, with fresh consideration. A promise made after majority to repay money borrowed during minority is not binding, because past consideration given to a minor is no consideration.
So the statement is false. A minor's agreement is void and cannot be ratified, even after majority.
The law protects the minor but does not let the minor profit from fraud. A minor who lies about age to obtain a loan cannot be sued on the agreement. But where the minor obtained property or goods by fraud and still has them, the court may order the minor to restore them. Supplies of necessaries are also paid for out of the minor's property under section 68.
(iii) Anything done in ignorance of offer does not amount to acceptance
True.
Acceptance is the assent of the offeree to an offer (section 2(b)). A person cannot assent to something unknown. An act done without knowing of the offer is not done in response to it. So it cannot be acceptance, even if it happens to fulfil the offer's conditions.
In Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, (1913) 11 ALJ 489, the defendant's nephew went missing. The defendant sent his servant, the plaintiff, to search for the boy. After the plaintiff left, the defendant announced a reward of Rs 501 for anyone who found the boy. The plaintiff found him, not knowing of the reward, and later claimed it. The court held that he could not claim the reward, because he had no knowledge of the offer when he found the boy.
The same principle applies to general offers. Section 8 says performing the conditions of a proposal is acceptance. But that performance must be done with knowledge of the proposal, and with the intention of accepting it.
So the statement is true.
The rule rests on a simple idea. A contract is an agreement, and agreement needs two minds meeting on the same terms. Where one person does not know of the other's offer, their minds never meet. A person who later learns of the offer, and then performs its conditions, does accept it.
Conclusion. (i) is false. Under section 2(d) consideration may move from any other person, so a stranger to the consideration who is a party may sue. (ii) is false, because a minor's agreement is void under Mohori Bibee and cannot be ratified, though a fresh contract may be made after majority. (iii) is true, because acceptance requires knowledge of the offer, as Lalman Shukla shows.
The rest of the answers
The rest of the answers come with the DU B.Com. (Programme) Semester 1 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays open to everyone.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.