NOTES


CA-Foundation > Business Laws > The Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Free Consent (Old & New)

"Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud". Comment.



Ans.

Can Silence be Fraudulent?

“Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, if the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself equivalent to speech". [Explanation to sec. 17]

Example I: H sold to W certain pigs. The pigs were suffering from fever and H knew it. The pigs were sold "with all faults". H did not disclose the fever to W. Held: There was no fraud [Ward v. Hobbs (1878) A. C. 13].

Example II: A sells by auction to B, a horse which A knows to unsound. A says nothing to B about the horse's unsoundness. This is not fraud by A. Mere non-disclosure is not fraud. If there is no duty to speak.

Example III: A and B, being traders enter upon a contract. A has private information of a change in prices which would affect B's willingness to proceed with the contract. A is not bound to inform B.

From the above, following rules can be deduced:

1. The general rule is that mere silence is not fraud.
2. Silence is fraudulent, “if the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak". The duty to speak, i.e., disclose all facts exists where there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as in father and son; guardian and ward, etc, and also in the insurance contracts, marriage contracts, partnership contract etc which are contracts based on good faith [contracts of uberimae fidei]). The duty to disclose may also be an obligation imposed by statute.
Example: A sells by auction to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. B is A's daughter and has just come of age. Here the relation between parties would make it A's duty to tell B if the horse is unsound.
Silence is fraudulent where the circumstances are such that "Silence is in itself equivalent to speech”.
Example: B says to A – “If you do not deny it, I shall assume that the horse is sound." A says nothing. Here A's silence is equivalent to speech.

PreviousNext


Notes of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Free Consent (Old & New)



  1. What do you understand by “coercion” and “undue influence” under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ? What are the differences between them ?
    see in detail

  2. "Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud". Comment.
    see in detail

  3. ‘Aadi’ applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is stringency in the money market. The banker declines to make the loan except at an unusually high rate of interest. Aadi accepts the loan on these terms. Whether the contract is induced by undue influence? Decide.
    see in detail

  4. Aabhas threatens to shoot Eashan if he does not sell his car to him for ₹ 20,000. Eashan signs the necessary documents for sale of car. Later on, Eashan wants to avoid the contract. Will he succeed? If so, why?
    see in detail

  5. Aadit and Eehaan were sailing in a ship which was on its way from London to Bombay. While the ship was passing through the Suez Canal, Aadit threatened Eehaan to throw him into the sea unless he agreed to sell his watch for ₹ 100. Eehaan agreed to sell the same. After reaching Bombay, Eehaan changed his mind. Can Aadit file a suit against Eehaan to get the watch?
    see in detail