Agreement Specifically Enforced

A and B contract to become a partner, the contract is not the duration of the proposed partnership. In such a case, the contract cannot be applied in a concrete way, because either A and B could terminate the partnership immediately (Scott v. Rayment (1868) L.R. 7 Eq. 112). What types of contracts are not specifically applicable? In the case of Ram Karan v. Govind Lal [1], an agreement to sell farmland was entered into and the buyer paid the entire sale to the seller, but the seller refused to execute the sales file in accordance with the agreement. The purchaser commenced an action in concrete enforcement of the contract, and the court found that compensation for the money would not provide adequate relief and the seller was ordered to carry out the sale activity for the benefit of the purchaser. Under Section 14 (1) (c), contracts that are by nature identifiable cannot be applied in practice. The Specific Relief Act is an Act of Parliament that was passed on December 13, 1963. This act replaced an earlier act of 1877. In many cases, the damages awarded to the applicant are not sufficient, which is why this law refers to the facilities imposed by the court on the other party who does not fulfil an obligation under the agreed contract. This discharge is granted by the interested party itself, because the financial compensation in the form of damages did not satisfy the other party in the contract.

There are some contracts that cannot be applied concretely because of possible restrictions and problems with the legality of the contract itself.3 min read (b) the treaty is different, correct to be applied specifically. Article 14, paragraph 1, point b), contains three grounds for refusing a particular benefit: in accordance with Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, there are certain contracts that cannot be applied in practice: a company that exists exclusively for the purposes of producing and activity of a railway contract for the acquisition of a property for the purpose of the construction of a cotton mill. This treaty cannot be implemented in a specific way. Section 14 defines contracts that cannot be applied in a concrete way. This is (a) a non-performance contract, of which a cash award is a reasonable discharge; (b) A contract containing such protocol and multiple elements that the Court of Justice cannot enforce its essential conditions in practice or which depends on the personal qualification or will of the parties or a contract of its nature is such that the Court cannot impose a particular benefit; (c) a contract that can be determined by its nature; (d) a contract whose performance involves the performance of an uninterrupted obligation that the court cannot control. The subsection (2) specifies that no contract for the allocation of the current or future difference shall be terminated, except under the 1943 Arbitration Act; However, where a person who has entered into such a contract (with the exception of an arbitration agreement to which the provisions of that law apply) and who has refused to carry it out complains about all the matters he is supposed to deal with, the existence of such a contract is blocked. Section 10 contains cases in which the performance of the contract is enforceable.