Question

Legal Principle: An agreement, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, is void.
Factual Situation: A agreed to take B's house on rent for three years at the rent of $pounds$ 85 per annum provided the house was put to through repair and the drawing rooms were decorated 'according to the present style'. Issue : Is there is valid contract between A and B?

• A. There is no valid contract because it is a vague term, because the term 'present style' may mean one thing to A and another to B. Hence, the agreement is void on the ground that the terms of offer were vague and uncertain.
• B. There is a valid contract because there is an offer from the side of A and acceptance from the side of B.
• C. It is voidable contract at the option of A.
• D. None of these.

Answer 1

Answer: (A)

There is no valid contract because it is a vague term, because the term 'present style' may mean one thing to A and another to B. Hence, the agreement is void on the ground that the terms of offer were vague and uncertain.

One of the requisites of a valid contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is free consent of the parties as per Section 10. Consent is defined in Section 13 as follows: "Two persons are said to have consented to the contract when they have agreed to the same thing in the same sense." So, consensus ad idem is essential.

In the present case, the terms 'according to the present style' can be subjected to several interpretations. Therefore, the promisor and the promisee cannot agree on the same thing in same sense. Further, the definiteness of proposal is a necessity like the house with all definite requirements and the price like in the present case. This was affirmed in the case of Bigg v Boyd Gibbins Ltd. (1971).