Section 9 : Promises, express and implied
2022 CLC 1659 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. AFIFA BIBI alias BEGUM AFIFA MOMDOOT VS Mst. JAMEELA SIKANDAR
Ss. 8 & 9—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 113—Agreement, acceptance of—Consideration, receiving of—Suit for specific performance–Â-Plaintiff/respondent alleged that she purchased 4 plots (comprising of land measuring 27 Marlas) in Housing Colony/scheme launched by petitioner/defendant and paid Rs.20,000/- as earnest money against receipt on 17-06-1986; that petitioner had to transfer the said suit plots in the name of respondent after approval of the site plan of said Colony/scheme; that in 1997 she came to know that defendant had renamed said colony and was trying to sell the suit plots; that plaintiff was ready to pay the remaining consideration—Petitioner/defendant in written statement denied the execution of any agreement and receipt of consideration and raised objection that suit was time barred—Suit was dismissed by Civil Court—Appeal accepted by District Court with costs—Validity—Definition of “Agreement to sell” required that both the parties to agreement had to make promise for some lawful act against some lawful consideration—Noting in the Contract Act, 1872 required that offer and acceptance must necessarily be in writing or form a single document—Perusal of documents (receipt, Register Haqdaran Zameen and site plans) showed the existence of willing seller/willing buyer, settlement of the bargain, partial payment of consideration as well as the availability of specific property and consensus for the bargain between the parties—Petitioner received the amount of Rs.20,000 as earnest money and issued a duly signed receipt—As per written statement, the respondent was in possession the suit property—Receipt coupled with site plan conveniently lead to hold that valid agreement was executed between the parties on 22-06-1986—Said facts were admitted by attorney/real son of petitioner in his statement as witness—Admitted facts need not be proved—Witness went on saying that after failure of the said colony/scheme, the agreement with the plaintiff was verbally rescinded and amount received as partial consideration was returned to the plaintiff but in this respect no plea/assertion was taken in written statement nor proved through any corroborative evidence—Civil Revision was dismissed and respondent was directed to deposit the remaining consideration amount (Rs.61,000/-) with trial Court.
2018 PLC(CS) 975 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHARIQ-UL-HAQ VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION LIMITED
Ss. 3, 8 & 9—Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)—Object, scope and purpose—Agreement may be made which expressly or impliedly anticipates that it will be superseded by a later, more formal agreement and Letter of Intent is one example of such agreements—Where court finds that parties have intended to enter into a binding legal agreement but have not expressly agreed all necessary terms, court may imply terms by reference to past practice of parties or any relevant trade custom in order to give effect to their intentions—If intention is key factor in assessment of enforceability, it must be remembered that test of intention is objective—Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) means a document that expresses mutual accord on an issue between two or more parties—Memorandum of understanding is generally recognized as binding even if no legal claim could be based on rights and obligations laid down in them—To be legally operative, a MoU must (i) identify contracting parties; (ii) spell out subject matter of agreement and its objectives; (iii) summarize essential terms of agreement; and (iv) must be signed by contracting parties—It expresses a convergence of will between parties indicating an intended common line of action—MoU most often, is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement—MoU is put in place to establish a clear understanding of how the deal will practically function and each party’s role and compensation.
2017 SCMR 98 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD SATTAR VS TARIQ JAVAID
Ss. 8 & 9—Agreement not signed by one of the parties—Validity and enforceability of such an agreement—Valid contract could be oral or it may be through exchange of communication between the parties—Once an offer was communicated, the acceptance thereof could be express or implied—Such acceptance of the offer would include accepting the consideration accompanying the offer or acting upon the said bargain—Formal signature of both or either of the parties was not a necessary requirement—All that was required was an offer and acceptance and consideration between the parties—Contracts in general were not required to be reduced into writing (except where otherwise specifically provided by law) and the offer and acceptance could also be implied from the conduct of the parties in terms of sections 8 and 9 of the Contract Act, 1872—Absence of formal signatures did not affect the validity or enforceability of the contract.
2017 SCMR 98 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD SATTAR VS TARIQ JAVAID
54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 8 & 9—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79—Agreement to sell immoveable property not signed by the vendee—Validity and enforceability of such an agreement—Agreement to sell not signed by one of the parties if proved to have been accepted and acted upon would be a valid agreement to sell/contract that was enforceable in law—Existence and validity of the agreement and it being specifically enforceable or otherwise would depend upon the proof of its existence, validity and enforceability in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the relevant provisions of the Contract Act, 1872, the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and any other law applicable thereto—[Mst. Gulshan Hamid v. Kh. Abdul Rehman and others (2010 SCMR 334) held to be contrary to judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court].
2004 YLR 1612 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MALIK VS PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD and 3 others
—-S.2(d), 4 & 9—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.113—Sale of Government property by auction—Offer of highest bidder, acceptance of—Acceptance of such bid by Privatization Board was not communicated to bidder, but was admitted in an application
1996 CLC 698 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS ABDUL WAHID KHAN
Ss. 2(b) (c) (h), 9 & 25(3)—Proposal when becomes promise—Offer or proposal, in itself was not a “promise”, but would become a “promise” only when it was accepted—” Promise” in itself could be equivalent of an agreement whereas agreement enforceable by law, was a contract—Rule laid down in S. 9 of the Contract Act, 1872 which signifies that a proposal or acceptance of any promise need not be in words, would remain applicable to acceptance of proposals covered by S. 25(3) of the Act—Such acceptance could be otherwise than in words and need not be in writing at all.
1994 MLD 2276 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS HUSSAIN CORPORATION LTD.
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss.2(b)(e), (h), 9 & 25(3)–Promise; agreement and contract—Offer or proposal in itself was not a “promise”, but it would become a `promise’ only when it was accepted—Promise in itself could be equivalent to an agreement whereas an agreement enforceable by law was a contract—Rule that a proposal or acceptance of any promise need not be in writing, as laid down in S.9 of the Contract Act, 1872, would remain applicable to acceptance of proposals covered under S.25(3) of the Act, which means that such acceptance could be otherwise than in words and need not be in writing at all.
1989 MLD 2420 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA
INDIRA KAUR VS SHEO LAL KAPOOR
Contract Act 1872 —S. 9–Contract–Time whether of essence of contract–Sale of immovable property–Time is not of the essence of contract.
1975 PLD 193 SUPREME-COURT
KARACHI GAS CO.LTD VS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD
–Ss. 7, 8, 9, 63 & 72-Implied agreement-Contract between Gas Company (appellant-defendants) and consumers (respondents-plaintiffs) providing for upward revision of price of gas in case of rise in price of furnace oil beyond certain limit-Defendant subseq
1967 PLD 714 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS HAFIZ ABDUL AZIZ YOUSUFANI & CO VS MESSRS RAUF OIL MILLS AND SOAP INDUSTRIES
—Ss. 91 & 92, proviso (5)-Mercantile contract reduced to writing-Vague phrases and terms used in respect of incidental terms or condition which, according to course of business established in particular trade, are customarily included in such contract-O
1964 PLD 108 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
QASIM ALI RAJAB ALI VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KARACHI
Contract-No obligation can be implied in contract inconsistent with its expressed terms-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 9.