Law 2024 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) Discuss the rules which are taken into account by the courts while awarding damages for the breach of contract. Refer to the relevant statutory provisions and case law. 20 (b) 'An illegal contract is always void but a void contract is not always illegal.' Examine while illustrating both the types of contract. 15 (c) 'The liability of a surety is secondary, but it is co-extensive with that of Principal debtor.' In this backdrop, discuss the nature and extent of liability of surety. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) संविदा-भंग के लिए प्रतिकर (नुकसानी) अधिनिर्णीत करते समय न्यायालयों द्वारा गणना में लिए जाने वाले नियमों की विवेचना कीजिए । सुसंगत सांविधिक प्रावधानों और वाद विधि को संदर्भित कीजिए । 20 (b) 'एक अवैध संविदा सदैव शून्य होती है परन्तु एक शून्य संविदा सदैव अवैध नहीं होती है ।' दोनों प्रकार की संविदा का उदाहरण देते हुए परीक्षण कीजिए । 15 (c) 'प्रतिभू का दायित्व द्वितीयक (गौण) होता है परन्तु यह मूल ऋणी के दायित्व के समविस्तीर्ण होता है ।' इस पृष्ठभूमि में प्रतिभू के दायित्व के प्रकृति और विस्तार की विवेचना कीजिए । 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Law questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires a comprehensive, analytical treatment with statutory provisions and case law. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) [20 marks], and 30% each to parts (b) and (c) [15 marks each]. Structure: brief introduction on contract law principles; systematic treatment of each sub-part with sections, cases, and illustrations; integrated conclusion on how these doctrines collectively shape contractual remedies and obligations under Indian law.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Rules for damages under Sections 73-74 ICA 1872—remoteness (Hadley v. Baxendale), mitigation, liquidated vs. penalty; leading Indian cases like M.L. Devender Singh, Fateh Chand, Kailash Nath Associates
  • Part (a): Distinction between general/special damages and the duty to mitigate loss with supporting precedents
  • Part (b): Conceptual distinction between void (Section 2(j)) and illegal contracts; void for uncertainty, impossibility vs. illegal for forbidden by law, fraudulent, immoral
  • Part (b): Illustrations—void: agreement to sell uncertain goods; illegal: agreement to commit crime; Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeo Das on voidability vs. illegality
  • Part (c): Nature of surety's liability under Section 128 ICA—secondary yet co-extensive; immediate creditor recourse against surety
  • Part (c): Extent of discharge of surety—Section 133-135 (variance, release of principal debtor, composition); Swami v. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Lachhman Joharimal v. Bapu

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of Sections 73, 74, 75 for (a); Sections 2(g), 2(j), 23, 24 for (b); Sections 126-128, 133-135 for (c) with correct wording and context; no conflation of penalty and liquidated damagesIdentifies major sections correctly but misses nuances like Section 74's proviso or conflates void/voidable; minor errors in section numbersWrong sections cited, omits critical statutory provisions, or cites non-existent sections; fundamental misunderstanding of legal framework
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Hadley v. Baxendale, M.L. Devender Singh, Fateh Chand, Kailash Nath Associates, ONGC v. Saw Pipes; For (b): Gherulal Parekh, Neminath v. Jamboorao; For (c): Swami v. ICICI Bank, Lachhman Joharimal, Krishna v. DCM—with accurate facts and ratioMentions landmark cases but with incomplete facts or wrong ratios; misses Indian precedents where English law cited; conflates similar-sounding casesNo case law or entirely wrong cases cited; fictional case names; cases completely misapplied to legal propositions
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Explains remoteness rule's two limbs, mitigation doctrine's rationale; For (b): Analyzes why illegality taints entire agreement while voidness may be curable; For (c): Unpacks 'secondary but co-extensive' paradox with creditor's election rights and surety's subrogationDescribes rules without analytical depth; states doctrines without explaining underlying policy; misses interplay between sectionsMerely reproduces bare provisions without analysis; confuses fundamental doctrines; no understanding of 'co-extensive' liability concept
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Contrasts English common law with Indian statutory modifications; For (b): References to public policy's constitutional dimensions (Article 19 reasonable restrictions); For (c): Compares English suretyship principles with Indian codification; notes Law Commission recommendationsBrief mention of English law without systematic comparison; superficial reference to public policy without constitutional linkageNo comparative or constitutional perspective; treats Indian law in isolation; misses opportunity to cite 2018 Contract Law amendments
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes how damages rules, void/illegal distinction, and surety liability collectively balance party autonomy with judicial oversight; applies to contemporary commercial disputes (NPAs, bank guarantees, startup contracts); suggests reform areas like statutory liquidated damages claritySeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic restatement of law; no contemporary application or reform suggestionsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body; no application to real-world scenarios; missing entirely for one or more parts

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 2024 Paper II