Contract Law

All three types of agreements are void under Indian Contract Act: sharing salary of public officer (against public policy), selling religious offices (immoral/object opposed to public policy), and procuring public posts (corruption). Therefore 'All of the above' is correct.

A voidable contract is defined specifically as being voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. Option B states the opposite - that it is NOT voidable at the aggrieved party's option - which is incorrect. The question asks to identify the incorrect statement, so B is the answer.

When parties validly perform their contractual obligations, the contract is discharged by performance. This is the primary mode of contract discharge - obligations are fulfilled, and the contractual relationship ends naturally.

Agreements against public policy include trading with aliens, trafficking in public offices, and marriage brokerage (Staab v. Staab). Contracts for impossible acts are void under Section 23 of Contract Act due to impossibility, NOT as a public policy ground. The question correctly identifies the exception.

Under Section 20 of Indian Contract Act, agreements under bilateral mistake of fact (fundamental fact affecting agreement substance) are VOID. Unilateral mistake generally does NOT make agreements void (except identity mistake in specific contexts). Fraud makes agreements voidable (Section 19), not void. Contingent agreements are valid.

Under Section 23 of Contract Act, lawful consideration is consideration not forbidden by law (consideration and object). Inadequacy of consideration (too little value) does NOT make an agreement void or unlawful. Courts don't interfere with adequacy. The agreement remains valid if consent is free and consideration is lawful.

Under Section 56 of Contract Act (frustration), if after contract formation an event occurs making performance IMPOSSIBLE (not just difficult or expensive), the contract becomes VOID. This is supervening impossibility, not initial impossibility. The question correctly identifies this principle.

Implied contracts are formed through conduct rather than explicit words or writing. They are equally valid and enforceable when the essential elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) are present. Many contractual relationships arise by implication from the parties' behavior.

Quasi-contracts are based on principles of equity and justice rather than actual agreement between parties. They create obligations where no contract exists but one party has unjustly benefited at another's expense. Examples include payment by interested persons, supply of necessaries, and finder of goods.

An agreement to sell is not a completed sale, so ownership hasn't transferred. If the buyer breaches, the seller cannot sue for the price (which is only available in actual sale). The aggrieved party's remedy is damages for breach of contract. This reflects the intermediate nature of the agreement to sell.

Conditions and warranties in contract law can be either expressed (explicitly written in the contract) or implied (read into the contract by law or custom). The Indian Contract Act recognizes both types. Option A is incorrect because terms need not always be expressed. Option B is incorrect because they are not automatically implied if not expressed - it depends on circumstances.

Under contract and sales law, a breach of a condition gives the right to repudiate the contract, whereas a breach of a warranty only gives a right to claim damages, not to reject the goods or repudiate the contract.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, if the buyer rejects goods because the quantity is less than or exceeds what was contracted, the seller has the right to make a new tender (offer) of the exact contract quantity. This protects both parties - the buyer gets the contracted quantity, and the seller gets another chance to fulfill the contract correctly rather than the contract being terminated immediately.

A contract of sale can be either absolute or conditional. An absolute sale transfers ownership immediately without any conditions attached, while a conditional sale makes the transfer of property dependent on some specified condition being fulfilled. This distinction is fundamental in sales law - for example, a sale on approval is conditional, whereas a regular cash sale is absolute.

This is a logical syllogism problem. Premise 1: All contracts are agreements (C subset of A). Premise 2: All agreements are accepted offers (A subset of O). By the transitive property of subsets: If C is subset of A, and A is subset of O, then C is subset of O. Therefore: All contracts are accepted offers. This is valid deductive reasoning.