please describe section 21 of contract act


I don't understand section 21 of Indian contract act
explain it with example..
 
Reply   
 

Section 21 provides that a mistake of law in force in India does not make a contract voidable, but a mistake of foreign law is to be treated as a mistake of fact. Illustration– A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is barred by the Indian Law of Limitation, then the contract will not be voidable.

Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 


 
LEGAL

*go through

 
Reply   
 

एक अनुबंध शून्य नहीं है क्योंकि यह [भारत] में लागू किसी कानून की गलती के कारण हुआ था; लेकिन [भारत] में लागू न होने वाले कानून की एक गलती का तथ्य की गलती के समान प्रभाव पड़ता है।
ए और बी एक गलत धारणा पर आधारित अनुबंध बनाते हैं कि एक विशेष ऋण भारतीय सीमा कानून द्वारा वर्जित है; अनुबंध शून्य नहीं है।

Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

Contract Act 21 talks about the essentials of a valid contract.....

 
Reply   
 
Lawyer

Academic question should have been solved by your tutor.

It is not a dispute for consideration and obligation of experts on this platform.

 
Reply   
 

Hey

It is one of the most important sections.

Section 21 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872
21. Effect of mistakes as to law.—A contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in [India]; but a mistake as to a law not in force in [India] has the same effect as a mistake of fact. —A contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in[India]; but a mistake as to a law not in force in 1[India] has the same effect as a mistake of fact."
Illustration
A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is barred by the Indian Law of Limitation; the contract is not voidable.
 
In Cooper v Phibbs the plaintiff took a lease of certain fishery rights, and afterwards sought to avoid the contract on the ground of mistake, in that he did not know that the fishery belonged to himself, and ignorantly thought that it belonged to himself, and ignorantly thought that it belonged to the defendant. The defendant contended that this being a mistake of law, the plaintiff could not succeed. But, the Court held that ignorance of a private right was on a par with ignorance of fact and therefore would be excusable in law.
 
I hope this helps!
 
Regards

Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

Section 21, ICA, 1872, stands for mistake of law. It is based on legal maxim "ignorantia juris non excusat means that ignorance of the law is no excuse." U/S 21, ICA, 1872, a contract cannot be said to be voidable due to the mistake of the parties in understanding any laws that are in force in India. Hence the parties to the contract cannot claim relief on the grounds that they were unaware of the Indian law.

Exceptions :
1. Mistake with regard to a foreign law.

Section 21 also specifies that a mistake regarding a foreign law shall be treated as a mistake of fact. This is because the parties to the contract are not expected to know all the provisions of the foreign law and their meaning. Therefore in case of a mistake of the foreign law by both the parties, the contract will be considered void.

2. Mistake with regard to private right.

The existence of any private right is a matter of fact although depending on the rules of law because it is not possible for a party to fully know the private rights of another party.
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC Course!     |    x