Question

Legal Principle: The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.

Factual Situation: An agreement was made between the fathers of a groom and a bride before their marriage that each would pay a certain sum of money to the husband. Father of the boy paid the promised amount but his wife's father failed to pay the amount. The boy sued his father in-law for the recovery of the promise amount of money.

Issue: Can the boy recover the money?

• A. He cannot recover the amount, because no stranger to the consideration can take advantage of a contract made even for his benefit.
• B. He can recover because they had entered into a contract before the marriage.
• C. Neither (a) nor (b).
• D. Both (a) and (b).

Answer 1

Answer: (A)

He cannot recover the amount, because no stranger to the consideration can take advantage of a contract made even for his benefit.

The rule of privity of contract came into existence from English Common Law. It states that a stranger to a contract cannot sue for enforcement of a contract. In the present case, the boy was not part of the contract entered into between the boy's father and his father-in-law, so he is not entitled to sue for enforcement of contract .However, the rule has been criticized and has been either or rejected by the Indian courts following English decisions. In most of the matrimonial cases like that of Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan v Nawab Hussaini Begum, a minor wife was allowed to enforce contract against her father-in-law for betel leaf expenses, on becoming major. This was allowed despite the original contract between her father and father-in-law, holding that a third party benefiting from a contract should be allowed to sue for enforcement. But due to absence of any definite rule either for or against privity of contract, it is apt to follow the established rule of privity of contract. Therefore, the boy cannot sue his father-in-law following the principle of privity of contract.