Contract Law

Expressed conditions (also called express terms) are those that parties explicitly agree upon and include in their contract through discussion, negotiation, and written or verbal agreement. Implied conditions (B) are those presumed by law to exist based on the nature of the contract or trade customs. Option A is correct because expressed conditions must be consciously agreed upon by parties, not merely presumed by law. Options C and D are incorrect.

An agency becomes irrevocable when coupled with interest, meaning the agent has a pre-existing interest in the subject matter, or when the agent has incurred personal liability. The timing matters - the interest must exist before or at agency creation, not after.

The statement 'Undue influence involves physical force' is NOT correct - this is what the question asks for. Undue influence is psychological pressure exploiting relationship trust, while coercion DOES involve physical force. This distinction is fundamental in contract law.

A valid contract requires at least two distinct parties - there must be an offeror and an offeree. The statement 'One person can contract with himself' is legally impossible because you cannot offer to accept something from yourself - contract law requires two or more persons/parties to create a binding agreement.

Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, wagering agreements (betting on uncertain events) are expressly void per Section 30. In contrast, contingent contracts - which depend on future uncertain events collaterally - are perfectly valid under Section 31. The key distinction is that contingent contracts have a legitimate interest element, unlike pure wagers.

Quasi-contracts are not true contracts at all - they're obligations imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. They don't arise from agreement (A is correct), they create monetary rights (B is correct), and they're available against specific persons, not the world at large (C is correct). Since all three statements accurately describe quasi-contracts, D is correct.

An agency relationship can form by express agreement (clear terms), implied agreement (conduct suggesting agency), by ratification (principal later approves agent's unauthorized acts), or by operation of law (court-appointed guardians, trustees of insolvent estates, etc.). Since all these methods are valid ways to create principal-agent relationships, D is correct.

An agency coupled with interest means the agent has a specific interest in the property/subject matter of the agency (like a pawnbroker or mortgagee). Unlike ordinary agencies, these special agencies DON'T terminate on the principal's death, insanity, or insolvency because the agent's interest is independent of the principal's continued existence. This makes D the correct answer.

A valid contract requires multiple elements to coexist: offer and acceptance (mutual assent), intention to create legal relations, capacity of parties (competency), lawful consideration, lawful object, free consent, and sometimes writing/witnesses. Since option A covers offer/acceptance, B covers intention (though oddly phrased), and C covers capacity - and all are essential - D is correct as ALL these elements must exist together for a valid contract.

Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration must move at the desire of the promisor. The consideration can come from the promisee or any other person (a 'stranger' to the consideration), but every person who is not a party to the contract is a 'stranger' to the contract itself. This principle distinguishes between who provides consideration and who can enforce the contract.

Supervening impossibility (also known as the doctrine of frustration) occurs when an unforeseen event makes contract performance impossible or illegal after the contract is formed. This is covered under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The key distinction is that the impossibility was not contemplated by the parties at the time of contracting and is due to factors beyond their control.

Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act defines a contingent contract as a contract to do or not to do something if some event collateral to the contract does or does not happen. The key elements are: (1) performance is conditional, (2) the event is collateral to the contract, and (3) the contract binds parties based on the occurrence or non-occurrence of that event.

A wagering agreement is a promise where parties agree to give money or money's worth based on determining an uncertain future event. The key element is uncertainty - if the outcome is predetermined, it's not a wager. Such agreements are void under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act.

Recission (revocation of offer) must follow the same communication rules as the proposal itself. It must be communicated to the other party and can be revoked in the same manner as the proposal was communicated. Both statements (1) and (2) correctly state these requirements.

The Doctrine of Privity of Contract means only parties to a contract can enforce rights or obligations under it. A contract cannot benefit or bind strangers, even if the contract was intended to benefit them. This fundamental principle restricts contractual rights to actual signatories/parties.