Agreement Contingent On Impossible Events Are
b) A agrees to pay 1000 rupees of B if the daughter C of B A marries. It was dead at the time of the agreement. The agreement is not done. There is a very big difference between these two treaties. A mandatory contract is not a contract at all. In this case, the parties agree not to be bound by the contract as long as a formal contract is executed and is executed only at the request of the parties. A contract is only concluded in the event of an uncertain event. On the other hand, a quota agreement is quite another matter. Quota agreements suspend representation until the end of an uncertain and futuristic event. [x] Contractual agreements neglect the existence of a contract.
A contract with B to pay a sum of 10,000 rupees from his house burns. On the other hand, an agreement with B to enter into a contract as soon as his house burns is an agreement in accordance with the contract. This is the most important difference between a conditional contract and a contract. The planned event should be a future and uncertain event. If the performance of the commitment depends on a future event that must occur, the contract is not a conditional contract. A simple postponement of the delivery time will not condition the contract as at a later date. [vii] The event must be very futuristic and uncertain. Royalties and obligations are not covered by the definition of uncertainty. An event becomes uncertain only if it is not in the hands of an individual and the time is in the future.
It should be totally unpredictable for everyone. If a person promises to pay another amount of money if a ship does not return, he is not obliged to pay and only when the possibility of returning the ship becomes impossible. In this figure, when the ship sinks, the possibility of return becomes nil. That is why the treaty must be implemented. The person must pay and cannot wait with the hope that the ship will return. In Frost v. Ritter, the accused promised to marry the complainant after her father`s death. While the father was still alive, he married another woman and it was found that there was no longer any chance that the accused would marry the complainant. She therefore had the right to sue him.
Once the man married another woman, it was certain that the case of the marriage of the complainant and the accused would not occur.