hamburger menu
All Coursesall course arrow
adda247
reward-icon
adda247
    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
    368k+ 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
    368k+ students have already unlocked exclusive benefits with Test Prime!
    Our Plans
    Monthsup-arrow