arrow
arrow
arrow
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mangiram Bongur (1954 SC) is a case on:
Question

Satyabrata Ghose v. Mangiram Bongur (1954 SC) is a case on:

A.

Minor's contract

B.

Consideration

C.

Frustration

D.

Contingent contract

Correct option is C


The case of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mangiram Bongur is a landmark case on the doctrine of frustration of contract under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It addresses what happens when an unforeseen event makes performance impossible.
Information Booster: The doctrine of frustration discharges parties from their contractual obligations when an unforeseen event renders performance impossible or radically changes the contract's nature.
Additional Knowledge:
· (a) Minor's contract: Incorrect, the case deals with frustration, not minors.
· (b) Consideration: Incorrect, this case does not deal with consideration.
· (d) Contingent contract: Incorrect, though related, the case specifically deals with frustration.

test-prime-package

Access ‘State Judiciary PCS J’ Mock Tests with

  • 60000+ Mocks and Previous Year Papers
  • Unlimited Re-Attempts
  • Personalised Report Card
  • 500% Refund on Final Selection
  • Largest Community
students-icon
353k+ students have already unlocked exclusive benefits with Test Prime!
test-prime-package

Access ‘State Judiciary PCS J’ Mock Tests with

  • 60000+ Mocks and Previous Year Papers
  • Unlimited Re-Attempts
  • Personalised Report Card
  • 500% Refund on Final Selection
  • Largest Community
students-icon
353k+ students have already unlocked exclusive benefits with Test Prime!
Our Plans
Monthsup-arrow