9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

Section 3 - Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals
3. Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals.The communication of proposals,
the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are
deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he
intends to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of
communicating it.
SYNOPSIS
1. How contracts are made or revoked?
2. Offer, acceptance and intimation of acceptance complete the contract
3. Offer must be communicated
4. Acceptance of the offer
(a) Unaccepted offer creates no right or obligation
(b) Communication of acceptance
(c) Omission to communicate: acceptance by conduct
(d) Dispensing with notice of acceptance
(e) Deed executed by one party only
5. Offer to the whole world
6. Proposal and acceptance of purchase of shares
7. Contract of Insurance
8. Acceptance by Court
9. Plea of ignorance of conditions
1. How contracts are made or revoked?
A contract is concluded when in the mind of each contracting party, there is a consensus ad idem and
a modification or revocation of the contract requires a like consensus.1 A contract includes a
concurrence of intention in two parties, one of whom promises something to the other, who, on his
part accepts such promise. *** Now, as I cannot by the mere act of my own mind transfer to
another, a right in my goods without a concurrent intention on his part to accept them, neither can I
by my promise confer a right against any person until the person to whom the promise is made has, by
his acceptance of it, concurred in the intention of acquiring such right.2 An offer or its acceptance or
both may be made either by words or by conduct.3 When a contract is not made in accordance with
Article 299 of the Constitution of India, it is not a valid or binding document.4 So also, a person not a
party to a contract can not enforce the contract but the beneficiaries can enforce.5 The contract by
some of the trustees without any express permission from the absentee trustees who have not joined,
is not a concluded contract and is void.6
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

1/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

2. Offer, acceptance and intimation of acceptance completes the contract

Exceptions(1) Acceptance can be by post or telegram authorized by agreement, course of conduct
or usage of trade. Acceptance transmitted by post and contract is complete, (2) Acceptance of
consideration or performance of conditions of offer. The contract is complete.7
The contract is made at the place where acceptance is received.8 The acceptance of offer must be
absolute and unconditional. The tender for supply is subject to conditions of contract. The condition is
subsequent as to security deposit, and the acceptance letter is subject to security deposit. The result
is a concluded contract.9
In short, there must be a proposal and an acceptance of the proposal in order to constitute an
agreement. Such an agreement to be legally binding, and result in a valid contract must be based on
the free consent of the parties (sections 13-32).
(b) The parties must be competent to contract (sections 11, 12).
(c) The consideration must be lawful (section 23)
(d) The object must be lawful (sections 23-25).
(e) The agreement must not be expressly declared to be void (sections 26-30).
(f) The agreement must comply with the provision of any law requiring it to be in writing or
attested or registered.
3. Offer must be communicated
An offer to be valid must be communicated to the offeree, who must have an opportunity of accepting
or refusing it. There can be no acceptance of an offer which is uncommunicated and, thus, there is no
obligation to pay for services rendered without the knowledge of the person sought to be made liable.
The fact of a recognition or of acceptance of services by him may be sufficient to show an implied
contract to pay for them, if at the time, he had power to refuse or accept the services.10
Until a proposal is received, there is no completed offer.11 The means of communication which a man
has prescribed or authorized are generally taken as against him to be sufficient.12 But silence to a
letter does not amount to an acceptance of the term proposed in it.13 Without communication of offer,
no contract can arise.14 An advertisement for tenders is not a proposal which would bind the authority
to sell to the person who makes the highest tender. The submission of tender is in the nature of a
proposal or offer and unless the highest bid of tender is accepted and communicated to him; the
contract cannot be said to concluded between the parties.15
It may be noted that the proposal must be communicated. It is necessary that the proposal must be
made with a view to create legal relations.16 The test is objective, that is say, the test is whether a
reasonable man would consider that the promisor intended to bind himself legally or in short, whether
the promisor intended to contract.17 Where the parties make it clear expressly that they do not intend
to bind themselves legally, then agreement between them will not constitute a contract. Thus, in order
to constitute a contract, it is necessary that there must be a common intention of the parties to enter
into legal relations, mutually communicated expressly or impliedly.18 The intention of the parties has to
be gathered primarily from the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.19
4. Acceptance of the offer
(a) Unaccepted offer creates no right or obligation
A promise must be distinguished from an offer of a promise. An offer becomes a promise by
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

2/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

acceptance. Until acceptance, it may be withdrawn, after acceptance its character is changed.20 An
offer by one person made to another imposes no obligation on the former, until it is accepted by the
latter according to the terms in which the offer is made.21 Thus, a mere offer to give first opportunity
to purchase, not perfected by acceptance, is not binding.22 Mere making of an offer does not form
part of the cause of action for damages for breach of contract which has resulted from the
acceptance of the offer. Ordinarily, it is the acceptance of the offer and intimation of that acceptance
which results in a contract.23 So, a mere proposal in writing by a tenant to take a lease on certain
terms,24 or a doul darkhast, i.e., a mere proposal by a tenant to pay a certain rent for a certain
land,25 does not amount to a lease. Further, if a party to an agreement embodied in a document is told
that a stipulation in the agreement would not be enforced, he cannot be held to have assented to it.
The document does not amount to the real agreement between the parties and the other party cannot
sue upon it. Oral evidence is admissible to show that the document was never intended to operate as
an agreement.26
(b) Communication of acceptance
An offer is accepted when the acceptance is communicated. The communication must be made to the
offeror and a communication of acceptance made to a third person creates no contract,27 when it is in
a mode not indicated by the offeror, e.g., when the offeree sends the letter of acceptance to his own
agent for transmission to the offeror.28 If a mode is indicated by the offeror and the offeree departs
from this, the offeror may refuse to be bound by the acceptance.29 In India, the rule is a little different
from that of English law. In India, if the acceptance is not made within the prescribed manner, it is the
duty of the offerer to reject it within a reasonable time. If he does not reject it within a reasonable
time, it will be presumed that he has, accepted it. This provision is contained in section 7(2) of the
Contract Act. But when a proposal is made through an agent and the acceptance is communicated to
him, the contract is complete and binding as if acceptance had been communicated to the proposer
himself.30 On the other hand, a communication has no legal effect if it is not authorized by the
offeree.31 An order to be effective must be made by a competent authority but must be communicated
to the person in whose favour or against whom it has been made. Until that is done, it is not a
completed order.32 The means of communication which a man has prescribed or authorized are
generally taken as against him to be sufficient, otherwise an unexecuted intention to communicate
something or even an unsuccessful attempt, cannot be treated as amounting to a communication,
much less can a mere mental act of assent have such an effect in any case.33
(c) Omission to communicate: acceptance by conduct
But the communication of acceptance need not be always express in the sense of notification of the
acceptance to the offeror. Under this section, the conduct of the acceptor or an omission on his part
to communicate may under certain circumstances amount to an acceptance.34 Mere silence cannot
amount to any assent. It does not even amount to any representation on which, any plea of estoppel
may be founded, unless there is a duty to make some statement or do some act. It is only when there
is a duty to disclose some fact, or to do some act, the deliberate silence may become significant and
amount to a representation.35 But though acceptance of a proposal may be made without express
communication by the conduct of the acceptor, a person making a proposal cannot impose on the
party to whom it is addressed, the obligation to refuse it under the penalty of implied assent, or attach
to his silence, the legal result that he must be deemed to have accepted it.36 Neglect to answer a
business offer is certainly not as a rule, prudent or laudable, still there is no legal duty to answer it.37
So the mere sending of a notice by a Bank to one of its customers that the interest charged on
overdrafts against security held by the Bank had been raised is not of itself sufficient to render the
customer liable to pay the enhanced rate. But where on receiving the notice, the customer borrows
more money from the Bank, it is justified in charging him interest at the enhanced rate.38 In case of
counter-proposal, a mere failure to reply to it would not per se amount to an acceptance of it. To
imply an acceptance, the counter-proposal must have conveyed at least an intimation that silence
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

3/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

would be regarded as an acceptance of the proposal.39

It is true that the general rule is that an offer is not accepted by mere silence on the part of the
offeree but there may be further facts, conduct of parties together with offerees silence may
constitute an acceptance.40
(d) Dispensing with notice of acceptance
As notification of acceptance is required for the benefit of the person who makes the offer, the
person who makes the offer may dispense with notice to himself if he thinks it desirable to do so. There
can be no doubt that where a person in an offer made by him to another person, expressly or impliedly,
intimates a particular mode of acceptance as sufficient to make the bargain binding, it is only
necessary for the other person to whom such offer is made to follow the indicated mode of
acceptance; and if the person making the offer expressly or impliedly intimates in his offer that it will
be sufficient to act on the proposal without communicating acceptance of it to himself, performance of
the condition is a sufficient acceptance without notification.41 Thus, when a surety definitely asks the
creditor to advance money to the debtor from time to time and holds himself responsible for any
amount advanced up to a particular limit, the offer does not contemplate any communication of
acceptance at all.42 Assent by a donee is presumed until and unless he disclaims,43 and the same
principle is extended even to onerous gifts.44 So, where a person received a deed of gift, though
onerous, knowing that it was a deed of gift and never thought of doing anything contrary to its terms,
that was more than enough to constitute acceptance.45
In India, section 8 of the Indian Contract Act provides that performance of the conditions of a
proposal, or acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a
proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal. For example, an Insurance Company received a cheque by
a new proposer who subsequently certified as medically fit. The proposer died of pneumonia two weeks
later. Before his death, though the company was enquiry about the health of the proposer, yet in the
meantime got the cheque of proposer encashed. The Insurance Company was held liable.46
(e) Deed executed by one party only
A contract implies two parties; but a contract in writing in this country does not necessarily imply that
the document must be signed by both parties thereto.47 In India, agreements between two contracting
parties are evidenced by execution of a single document by one of the parties alone, and yet if the
contract has been agreed upon, the parties are bound by the rights conferred, and the liabilities
imposed, by the document.48 Where, therefore, a bond was executed by the defendant and delivered
to the plaintiff, it completed the agreement between the parties and there was, consequently, in law,
a contract.49
Acceptance by the plaintiff.There are only three cases in which acceptance can be made otherwise
than in words. One is, when the promisor has specified a manner in which the proposal is to be
accepted and that manner is not acceptance in words but acceptance otherwise than in words. A
second is, when acceptance is by performance of a condition of the proposal and the third is, when
acceptance of proposal is by the acceptance of any consideration offered for a reciprocal promise
invited from the promisee. Another case not covered by sections 7, 8 and 9 is when trade or mercantile
usage or local usage can be invoked to import into the transaction a promise by the promisee, which is
not made either expressly or impliedly.50
5. Offer to the whole world
An offer may be made open to the whole world, e.g., an offer of reward to anybody who would find a
missing boy. Such an offer is capable of being accepted
__________________________
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

4/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

by any person who fulfils the condition.51 With regard to offer of reward for supplying a particular piece
of information the person who gives the information first is entitled to the reward.52
Though an offer may be made to the whole world, a contract can arise only by acceptance of the
offer. Hence, knowledge of the terms of the offer is essential for acceptance. Thus, where a person
sent his servant in search of his missing boy and subsequently offered a reward to any one who would
find the boy, the servant, on finding the boy, could not claim the reward, as his search for the boy
could not be regarded as a consideration for the promise of reward.53 The reason is that there can be
no consent or assent to that of which the party has never heard.54 But, if there is knowledge of the
offer, the motive of compliance with the terms of the offer is immaterial.55
6. Proposal and acceptance of purchase of shares
An agreement to purchase shares is not different from an agreement in relation to other matters and
the principles of the law of contract as regards proposal and acceptance before an agreement can be
concluded,56 and an allotment of shares on an application by one of the members of the public must be
communicated to the applicant.57 So in the case of an ordinary member of the public, a contract to
take shares is completed when an application for shares has been submitted, an allotment on the foot
of that application has been made, and notice of that allotment has been communicated to the
applicant.58 The provisions of section 30 of the Indian Companies Act need also to be considered and a
mere agreement to take shares is not of itself sufficient, for under the section, the placing of the name
of a share-holder on the register is a condition precedent to membership.59
Where, however, the proposal comes from the company and is accepted by a person the question of
notice of allotment becomes immaterial. Thus, where the proposal came from the companys agent
which was accepted by a person by signing an application for shares, and the persons name was
accordingly entered in the register of members as a shareholder, there was a completed contract
though no notice of allotment was received by the shareholder.10 Again, a company may be under an
obligation to allot shares to its directors. In such cases, it often happens that the company is regarded
as making an offer to the directors to take shares, the directors subsequent application for shares is
an acceptance of the offer, and when the application is made, the bargain is completed.61
A person who agrees to be a member of a company on some condition does not become a member if
the condition precedent is not fulfilled,62 even though shares have been allotted to him and his name
has been placed on the register.63 But a condition subsequent will not have the same effect.64
The register of members is prima facie evidence of membership and the burden of proving allegations as
to conditions and failure to send notice of allotment is on the person so alleging.65
7. Contract of Insurance
In cases of insurance, the acceptance of the premium by the insurance company does not of itself
show that they have accepted the offer. It is essential further that the premium should have been
fixed as until it is fixed, it is impossible to hold that there is a completed contract.66 On the other
hand, it is impossible to assent to the doctrine that without a delivered policy, there is no insurance. If
the premium is fixed, the insurance would have been effected, although no policy was delivered.67
Life insurance company issued a letter of acceptance mentioning that the risk will commence from the
date of issue of first premium receipt under the policy. At a later date, the interim policy receipt was
issued bearing an endorsement to the effect that the receipt is issued subject to personal statement
duly completed by debtor. It was held that the acceptance of the proposal was completed since it was
communicated to the plaintiff and it did not matter if the policy had not actually been issued.68
8. Acceptance by Court
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

5/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

An offer may be accepted by the Court and it may inure to the benefit of a party.69
9. Plea of ignorance of conditions
Questions often arise with regard to the liability arising out of acceptance of a document confining
various terms or a document in which all the terms do not appear on the face of it. As Anson says:
_____________________
1. Noorbhai v. Karuppan, 1925 PC 232: 23 MLW 182.
2 Pothie r, Pt. 1, C h. 1, se ction 1, Art. 1, S. 2, pp. 4, 5.
3 Anson, p. 18, 17th e dn.
4 Sri Narayan Gosain v. C olle ctor C uttack , AIR 1986 O ri 46.
5 AIR 1970 SC 504: (1969) 2 SC C 343.
6 (1979) 4 SC C 602: AIR 1980 SC 17.
7 AIR 1980 MP 80; se e AIR 1966 SC 543 and (1974) 1 All ER 1015 (PC ).
8 AIR 1966 SC 543: (1966) 1 SC R 656.
9 AIR 1962 SC 378.
10 Tayle r v. Laird, 25 LJ Ex . 329.
11 EBI & R .P. C o. v. Ve layam m al, AIR 1937 Mad 571: ILR 1937 Mad 990.
12 Hindustan C o-op. Insurance Socie ty v. Sham Sunde r, AIR 1952 C al 691: 56 C W N 418.
13 SM Bholat v. Yak ohatm m a Spe cic Batik , AIR 1941 R angoon 270: 197 IC 890.
14 C e ntral Bank v. Bapuji, AIR 1949 Nag 286: ILR 1949 Nag 106.
15 Ex e cutive Engine e r Sunde rgarh v. Mohan Prasad, AIR 1990 O rissa 26.
16 Balfour v. Balfour, (1919) 2 KB 571.
17 C arlill v. C arbolic Sm ok e Ball C o., (1893) 1 Q B 256.
18 R ose & Frank C o. v. C rom pton Brothe rs, (1923) 2 KB 261.
19 State of Gujarat v. Varie ty Body Builde rs, AIR 1976 SC 2108, 2110: (1976) 3 SC C 500.
20 Anson, pp. 4, 5, 17th e dn.
21 Be ngal C oal C o. v. Hom e e W adia & C o., 27 Bom 97, 102.
22 Govindaswam i v. Doraiswam i, 1926 Mad 120: 91 IC 181.
23 Bhagwan Das Gove rdhandas v. Girdhari Lal Parshottam das & C o., AIR 1966 SC 543: (1966) 1 SC R 656.
24 Sye d Sufdar v. Am zad Ali, 7 C al 703 (FB).
25 Lall Jha v. Ne groo, 7 C al 717.
26 Tyagaraja v. Ve dathanni, 59 Mad 446: 1936 PC 70: 160 IC 384: 40 C W N 353 PC .
27 Fe lthouse v. Binde ly, 11 C BNS 869; Gopi v. R aghu, AIR 1949 Pat 552.
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

6/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

28 He bbs case , LR 4 Eq. 9.

29 Eliason v. He nshaw, 4 W he aton 225.
30 Tricum das Mills C o. v. Haji Saboo, 4 Bom LR 215.
31 Powe ll v. Le e , 99 LT 284.
32 Mak han Lal v. Dire ctor of Panchayats, Govt. of W e st Be ngal, 68 C W N 1109.
33 Hindustan C o-op. Insurance Socie ty v. Sham Sunde r, AIR 1952 C al 691: 56 C W N 418.
34 Krishnayyav v. Padm anathan, 1917 MW N 91: 37 IC 792.
35 Bank of India Ltd. v. R ustom C owasje e , AIR 1955 Bom 419: 57 Bom LR 850.
36 Bishan v. C handi, 42 All 187: 54 IC 437; Haji Mahom e d v. Spinne r, 24 Bom 510; Fe lthouse v. Bindle y, 11 C BNS
689. For acce ptance of offe r by conduct of acce ptor, se e AIR 1964 Mad 52.
37 Bishan v. C handi, 42 All 187. Se e also Gaddar v. Tata Indust. Batik , 49 All 674, 680: 1927 All 407: 100 IC
1023.
38 Gaddar v. Tata Indust. Bank , 49 All 674: 1927 All 407: 100 IC 1023.
39 Krishnayyav v. Padm anathan, 1917 MW N 91: 37 IC 792.
40 R am ji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Im port, Inve st, AIR 1981 SC 2085, 2092: (1981) 1 SC C 80: (1981) 1 SC R
899; R . v. Futham Ham m e rsm ith & Ke nsington R e nt Tribunal e x parte Ze re k , 1951 All ER 482; Brogde n v.
Me tropolitan R ly. C o., (1877) 2 AC 666; C lark e v. Earl of Dunarave n (The Santavia), 1897 AC 59.
41 Pe r Bowe n, LJ in C arlill v. C arbolic Sm ok e Ball C o., (1893) 1 Q B (C A) 269.
42 Firm R anga R am v. R aghbir, 1928 Lah 938: 113 IC 780.
43 Xe nos v. W ick ham , (1863) 2 HL 296; London and C ounty Bank v. London and R ive r Plate Bank , (1888) 21 Q BD
535.
44 Sigge rs v. Evans, (1855) 5 E&B 367.
45 Sarbo Mohan v. Manm ohan, 37 C W N 149: 1933 C al 488: 143 IC 757: 56 C W N 418.
46 Hindustan Insurance C orporation Socie ty v. Shyam Sunde r, AIR 1952 C al 691. Se e also Union of India v.
R am e shwar Lal Bhagchand, AIR 1973 Gau 111, 113: 1972 Ass LR 444.
47 Bouwang v. R anga Be hrii, 22 C LJ 311.
48 Babu R am v. Im am Ullah, 1935 All 411 415: 157 IC 533.
49 Se e Bouwang v. R anga Be hari case .
50 Gaddar v. Tata Indust. Bank , 49 All 674, 678: 1927 All 407: 100 IC 1023.
51 Har Bhajan v. Har C haran, 1925 All 539: 88 IC 908; W illiam s v. C arwardine , 4 B&A 621, adve rtise m e nt to give
a sum of m one y to any pe rson who would give inform ation le ading to the discove ry of m urde re r. De nton v. G.N.
R y. C o., 25 LJQ B 129, 134, tim e table s of a railway com pany are a proposal offe re d to all pe rsons to be carrie d by
the trains. C arlill v. C arbolic Sm ok e Ball C o., (1893) 1 Q B 256, adve rtise m e nt to pay a sum of m one y to any one
who contracte d influe nza afte r using a m e dicine .
52 Lancaste r v. W alsh, 4 M&W 16.
53 Lalm an v. Gauri, 1 AU 489: 19 IC 576.
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

7/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

54 Fitch v. Sne dak e r, Langd., on contract, 110.

55 W illiam s v. C arwardine , 4 B&A 621, inform ation le ading to the discove ry of a m urde r give n, the inform ant
be lie ving she had not long to live , and to e ase he r conscie nce .
56 Nicols case , 29 C h D 421; Motilal v. Thak orlal, 36 Bom 557.
57 Pe llatts case , 2 C h 527; cf. Im pe rial Flour Mills v. Lam b, 12 Bom 647; Anandji v. Narlad C o., 1 Bom 320;
Ajodhia v. O ff. Liq, 7 AW N 57; se e Buck land, Indian C om panie s Act, p. 37.
58 Sadiq Hassan v. Mum taz Bank , 1929 Lah 656: 123 IC 92.
59 Nicols case , 29 C h D 421, 447.
60 Motilal v. Thak orlal, 36 Bom 557; Brown and Tuck e rs case s, 25 LTNS 654.
61 Sadiq Hassan v. Um taz Bank , 1929 Lah 656: 123 IC 92.
62 Indian Me rchants Bank v. Jogindra, 1928 Lah 234: 108 IC 92, 192; Indian Me rchants Bank v. Anup C hand,
1928 Lah 136: 107 IC 492.
63 Mohe ndra v. Lachm an, 35 All 538.
64 Motilal v. Thak oral, 36 Bom 557.
65 W ayam Singh v. O ff. Liquidator, 1926 Lah 414: 95 IC 252.
66 Kwa Hai v. Northe rn Assce . C o., 1924 R ang. 269: 83 IC 569.
67 Ibid; C hristte v. Northe rn British Ins, C o., (1825) 3 Shaw (C t. of Se ss) 519.
68 R am de o Moolchand v. Lak shm i Insurance C o., AIR 1962 Punj 125.
69 Se e In re Union Indian Sugar Mills C o., 127 IC 428: 1930 All 330; Am ir All v. Inde ijit, 14 MIA 203: 9 BLR 460;
Protap v. Arathoon, 8 C al 455: 10 C LR 443, unde rtak ing not to appe al; Uttam C hand

v. Khetra Nath, 29 Cal

577, sale to stand if money not paid within a certain time.

_____________
The question is one of fact. In Richardson v. Rowntree,70 a case where a passenger got judgment in
his favour for injuries sustained by the negligence of a steamship company in spite of a clause limiting
its liability printed on the ticket in small type and obscured by words stamped across it in red ink, it
was finally decided by the House of Lords that to accept a document does not necessarily make all the
conditions contained in it a part of the contract, but that whether they are so or not is not a matter of
law, but a question depending upon the answers of the jury to the following questions: (1) Did the
person accepting it know that there was any writing on the document? If he did not, he will not be
bound by the conditions.71 (2) If he knew there was writing, did he know or believe that it contained
conditions? If he did, he will be bound by them, whether he took the trouble to ascertain what they
were or not. (3) If he knew there was writing, but did not know or believe that it contained conditions,
did the party delivering the document to him do what was reasonably necessary to give him notice that
the writing contained conditions ? In that case also, he will be bound by them.72
In despatching goods by railway, if the consignor signs a forwarding note under a statement to be
bound by the conditions at its back, he is bound by its conditions even if he is, in fact, ignorant of
their effects.73 So also, would be the cases regarding a condition of non-liability for loss of passengers
luggage printed in the French language on the back of the passengers ticket, though the passenger
did not know the language.74 It is not the legal duty of a Railway company to see whether the person
delivering the goods is ignorant or not or to see that he reads and understands before he signs.75
http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

8/9

9/14/2014

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Where a railway ticket for an excursion train is issued at half fare subject to the conditions and
regulations in the companys time tables and notices and excursion and other bills, the railway
company is to be treated as having made an offer to intending passengers that if they will accept the
conditions contained in the ticket, they will be taken at suitable times and fares. When the ticket is
taken, the person who takes it becomes bound by the conditions whether he took the trouble to
search out the conditions or understand then or not. The mere fact that the passenger has to make a
considerable search before he finds out the conditions does not make it insufficient notice, nor the fact
that the passenger cannot read would make any difference.76
Similarly, it is not necessary to prove that an insurance companys prospectus containing conditions of
insurance and referred to in the policy had been read by or specially brought to the notice of the
assured, apart from the reference made to it in the policy (which was expressed to be issued subject
to the regulations and conditions comprised in the prospectus). As regards the effect to be given to
the prospectus as a part of the contract of insurance, it would have effect as if it had been
reproduced in the policy itself.78 When there is no ground for supposing that the document was signed
under any misrepresentation that it was other than what it really was, so as to bring the case in the
class of those cases where the parties cannot be said to have agreed upon the same thing in the same
sense, acceptance of the document without protest amounts to a tacit acceptance of the conditions,
assuming them to relate to the matters of contract and to be of a more or less usual kind.79
_____________________
70 1894 AC 217.
71 C f. Hande rson v. Ste ve nson, LR 2 HL Sc App 470, condition for non-liability for loss or injury to a passe nge r or
his luggage printe d on the tick e t with no indication of its e x iste nce on the face of tick e t.
72 Park e r v. S.E. R y. C o., 2 C PD 426 (C A), conditions lim iting liability printe d on the back of a tick e t we re indicate d
by the words Se e back on the face of the tick e t ......Anson, p. 21, 17th e dn.
74 Madras R ailway C o. v. Govinda, 21 Mad 172.
75 Mack illican v. C om pagnic de s Me ssage rie s Maritim e s de France , 6 C al 227; the tick e t on its face state d that it
was issue d subje ct to ce rtain conditions on its back .
76 G.I.P. R y. v. C hak aravarti Sons, 32 C W N 53: AIR 1928 C al 170: 106 IC 247.
77 Thom pson v. London, Midland and Scottish R y. C o., (1930) 1 KB 41; condition ne gativing liability for accide nts.
78 O rie ntal Govt. S.L.A. C o. v. Narasim ha, 25 Mad 183, 205.
79 Standard O il C o. v. Haridas, 79 IC 456: 1921 Sind 121.

Law of Contract & Specific Relief, 5th Edition, By Moitra

Copyright - Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer :

The vie ws and com m e nts e x pre sse d in the pre se nt cate gory are those of the Author. The se should not be tak e n to re fle ct
the vie ws of the organisation. Manupatra Inform ation Solutions Pvt. Ltd. e x pre ssly disclaim s all re sponsibility for any loss,
injury, liability or dam age of any k ind re sulting from and arising out of, or any way re late d to the C onte nt.

http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=15328&actid=780&iPage=1&hText=

9/9