Law 2022 Paper II 50 marks State

Q7

(a) State the circumstances of supervening impossibility and frustration of contract in the light of the decided cases. (20 marks) (b) "The Information Technology Act, 2000 aimed at e-commerce development, but failed to satisfy growth-building traders and consumer confidence." Comment. (15 marks) (c) "An agreement without consideration is void." Is there any exception to it? Discuss by giving suitable illustrations. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(क) संविदा की नैराश्यता तथा पर्यवेक्षणीय असंभावनाओं की परिस्थितियों का निर्णीत विधि के आलोक में वर्णन कीजिये। (20 अंक) (ख) "सूचना तकनीकी अधिनियम, 2000 का उद्देश्य ई-कॉमर्स का विकास करना था, किन्तु यह व्यापारियों के विकास-सृजन और उपभोक्ताओं के आत्मविश्वास को संतुष्ट करने में असफल रहा है।" टिप्पणी कीजिये। (15 अंक) (ग) "बिना प्रतिफल के करार शून्य है।" क्या इसका कोई अपवाद है? उपयुक्त उदाहरण देकर विवेचना कीजिये। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Law questions

Directive word: State

This question asks you to state. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'state' in part (a) requires precise enumeration of legal principles with supporting cases, while parts (b) and (c) demand 'comment' and 'discuss' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time and words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief introduction, then address each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ensuring part (a) covers all frustration circumstances with case laws, part (b) balances achievements and failures of IT Act 2000, and part (c) explains consideration doctrine with its seven exceptions under Section 25 of Indian Contract Act.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Circumstances of supervening impossibility under Section 56 of Indian Contract Act—destruction of subject matter (Taylor v. Caldwell), death or incapacity of party, government requisition or legislation (Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram), non-existence of state of things (Krell v. Henry), outbreak of war, and failure of source (Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh)
  • Part (a): Distinction between initial impossibility (void ab initio) and supervening impossibility (frustration), with reference to Krell v. Henry and the 'coronation cases' establishing implied term theory
  • Part (b): IT Act 2000 objectives—legal recognition of electronic records, digital signatures, cyber security framework; achievements including Sections 4, 5 on legal recognition and Sections 65-74 on cyber offences
  • Part (b): Critical failures—lack of data protection framework (pre-2019), inadequate consumer protection for e-commerce, jurisdictional challenges in cyber crimes, Section 66A misuse (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India struck it down), and absence of dedicated e-commerce dispute resolution
  • Part (c): General rule under Section 25—agreement without consideration void; detailed explanation of seven exceptions: love and affection (Section 25(1)), compensation for past voluntary service (Section 25(2)), promise to pay time-barred debt (Section 25(3)), agency (Section 185), completed gifts, bailment, and charity

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Section 56 for frustration, Section 25 and its sub-sections for consideration exceptions, and specific IT Act 2000 sections (4, 5, 10, 65-74, 85) with accurate wording; no conflation of English and Indian statutory provisionsMentions correct sections but with some inaccuracies in sub-section numbering or conflates IT Act provisions; broadly identifies Contract Act sections without precise sub-section referencesIncorrect or missing statutory citations; confuses Section 56 with other sections; fails to identify specific sections in IT Act 2000 or consideration exceptions
Case-law citation20%10Cites minimum 6-7 landmark cases with accurate facts and ratio—Taylor v. Caldwell (1863), Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram (1954), Krell v. Henry (1903), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), and consideration cases like Venkata Charya v. Venkata Ratnam; applies case law to illustrate doctrinal developmentNames 4-5 major cases with broadly correct facts but imprecise ratio; misses key cases like Sushila Devi or Indian decisions on frustration; some English cases cited without Indian adaptationFewer than 3 cases cited; incorrect case names or misattributed principles; cites cases irrelevant to specific legal propositions asked
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a), distinguishes implied term theory, frustration of purpose, and radical change in obligation; for (b), analyzes regulatory theory gaps in e-commerce; for (c), explains why consideration is essential and how exceptions balance policy needs without undermining doctrineDescribes frustration circumstances and consideration exceptions descriptively without deep theoretical analysis; limited engagement with why IT Act 2000 failed—lists rather than analyzesPurely descriptive with no doctrinal depth; fails to explain theoretical basis of frustration or consideration; no critical engagement with IT Act's regulatory design
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (b), references UNCITRAL Model Law on E-Commerce 1996 as template for IT Act 2000, compares with EU Consumer Rights Directive or US Section 230; notes Article 19(1)(a) and 21 dimensions in Shreya Singhal; for (a), contrasts English coronation cases with Indian statutory codification under Section 56Brief mention of UNCITRAL Model Law or Shreya Singhal's constitutional importance without elaboration; superficial comparison with foreign jurisdictionsNo comparative or constitutional perspective; ignores international context of IT Act 2000 or constitutional dimensions of cyber law
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes across parts: notes how frustration doctrine and consideration exceptions both balance certainty with fairness; for IT Act, suggests specific reforms (Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 as corrective); proposes integrated e-commerce regulatory framework linking contract law, IT Act, and consumer protectionSeparate conclusions for each part without cross-linking; generic recommendations for IT Act improvement; restates exceptions without forward-looking applicationNo conclusion or abrupt ending; missing part (c) entirely; conclusions unsupported by preceding analysis; no contemporary relevance or reform suggestions

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Law 2022 Paper II