As we discussed in simultaneous promises, if the other party is not ready or willing to keep its promise, then the other side does not have to keep its side of the promise. The second sentence is for an illegal object, namely the B can use the house as a play house, and is an agreement as it stands. Rajalakshmi terminated the contract. Sadarmani argued that the non-presentation of the title document was the reason why she could not pay the last tranche. The court found that these two promises (the promise to present the title and the promise to pay for the last document) were exclusive, as Sadarmani could pay the last instalment without showing the title. That`s why Sadarmani should have paid the last instalment. If the promise promises to do an act that he knows cannot be done, then he is required to pay compensation for the losses incurred by the promise because of his inability to perform the deed. This concept has evolved through jurisprudence. It states that the parties` two promises are independent of each other and do not have to rely on each other for the delivery. Suppose there`s a contract where A`s going to give B and B Ana chocolates. If the contract requires an order in which the promised actions must be performed, the acts must be performed in that order. Otherwise, the order of order is determined by the type of promises.
Sections 51 to 54 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 („Act“) are the relevant provisions that specifically address reciprocal promises. While Sections 51 and 52 explain the different situations in which mutual engagement may be relevant, sections 53 and 54 refer to situations in which a party does not respect its commitment. This article was written by Millia Dasgupta of Jindal Global Law School. This article deals with reciprocal promises, the types of reciprocal promises and rules regarding. For example, Ashok promises to deliver coats to the Navya. Navya then promised to sell such coats on the black market for more profit. Here, Ashok`s promise to deliver Navya coats is valid, but the Navy`s promise to sell such coats on the black market is not valid. 2.3 At the same time, it is once again a common form of mutual promise, in which the parties must fulfil their obligations explicitly or tacitly at the same time. The party that is prepared to honour its promise will be exempted if the other party is not „ready“ and „willing“ to fulfill its respective obligations. In J.P. Builders vs.
Ramadas Rao,5 the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that „preparation“ refers to financial capacity and „preparation“ refers to the behaviour of the aggrieved party who wishes the benefit, and in general the former is supported by the latter. To understand this, let`s go back to the original illustration. If „A“ were to require sellers, in a tendering process, to source certain raw materials for „B,“ all of which, including those from „B,“ while „A“ was not „ready“ and „willing“ to make bids in a timely manner, „B“ could be freed from the performance of its commitment.