NOTES


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

Ganesh, Suresh and Mahesh are partners of software business jointly promise to pay ₹ 30,000 to Rupesh. Over a period of time Suresh became insolvent, but his assets are sufficient to pay one-forth of his debts. Mahesh is compelled to pay the whole. Decide whether Mahesh is required to pay whole amount himself to Rupesh in discharging joint promise?



Ans.
According Section 43 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 when two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any one or more of such joint promisers or perform the whole of the promise. Further, if any one of two or more joint promisers makes default in such contribution, the remaining joint promisors must bear the loss arising from such default in equal shares. Therefore, in this case, Mahesh is entitled to receive 2,500 from Suresh’s assets and 13,750 from Ganesh.
DEVOLUTION OF JOINT LIABILITIES & JOINT RIGHTS [SECS. 42 TO 45]

Devolution of joint liabilities (Section 42)

When two or more persons have made a joint promise, then, unless a contrary intention appears by the contract, all such persons, during their joint lives, and, after the death of any of them, his representatives jointly with the survivor or survivors and, after death of the last survivor, the representatives of all jointly, must fulfil the promise.

According to this section joint promisors must, during their joint lives, fulfil the promise. And if any of them dies, his representative must, jointly with the surviving promisors, fulfil the promise and so on. On the death of the last survivor, the representatives of all of them must fulfil the promise. But this is subject to any private arrangement between the parties. They may expressly or impliedly prescribe a different rule.

Any one of joint promisors may be compelled to perform [Section 43]

When two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any (one or more) of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise.

Each promisor may compel contribution.— Each of two or more joint promisors may compel every other joint promisor to contribute equally with himself to the performance of the promise, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.

Sharing of loss by default in contribution.— If any one of two or more joint promisors makes default in such contribution, the remaining joint promisors must bear the loss arising from such default in equal shares.

Illustrations

1. A, B and C jointly promise to pay D 3,000 rupees. D may compel either A or B or C to pay him 3,000 rupees.

2. A, B and C jointly promise to pay D fee sum of 3,000 rupees. C is compelled to pay the whole. A is insolvent, but his assets are sufficient to pay one-half of his debts. C is entitled to receive 500 rupees from A's estate, and 1,250 rupees from B.

3. A, B and C are under a joint promise to pay D 3,000 rupees. C is unable to pay anything and A is compelled to pay the whole. A is entitled to receive 1,500 rupees from B.

This section lays down three rules:

1. Firstly, when a joint promise is made, and there is no express agreement to the contrary, the promisee may compel any one or more of the joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise. “A, B and C jointly promise to pay D 3000 rupees. D may compel either A or B or C to pay him 3000 rupees.” This implies that unless there is a contract to the contrary, each joint-promisor is individually liable for the entire performance. Thus the liability of joint-promisors is joint as well as several “Several” means severable or separable. Several liability of a joint-promisors is a liability which can be separated from the joint liability and becomes an individual liability.

2. Secondly, a joint promisor who has been compelled to perform the whole of the promise, may require the other joint promisors to make an equal contribution to the performance of the promise, unless a different intention appears from the agreement. A, B and C are under a joint promise to pay D 3000 rupees. D recovers the whole amount from A. A may require B and C to make equal contributions.

3. Thirdly, if any one of the promisors makes a default in such contribution, the remaining joint promisors must bear the deficiency in equal shares. A, B and C are under a joint promise to pay D 3000 rupees, C is unable to pay anything. The deficiency must be shared by A and B equally. If C's estate is able to pay one-half of his share, the balance must be made up by A and B in equal proportions.

Section 43 allows an action to be brought against any one of the joint promisors without impleading the others as defendants. Suppose now that the creditor sues only one joint promisor, can he subsequently sue the others? According to the English law he cannot, but according to Indian Law he can subsequently sue the others. The creditor is also given the right to release anyone of the joint promisors from his liability and this does not discharge the others from their liabilities.

Effect of release of one joint promisor [Section 44]

Where two or more persons have made a joint promise, a release of one of such joint promisors by the promisee does not discharge the other joint promisor or joint promisors; neither does it free the joint promisor so released from responsibility to the other joint promisor or joint promisors.

This section gives to the promisee a right to release any one or more of the joint-promisor from the liability under the joint promise. Once the release is granted, the promisee will not be able to file a suit against the released joint-promisor. But, the liability of the other joint-promisor shall continue unchanged. Similarly, the liability of the released joint-promisor towards other joint-promisors for contribution shall also continue. The net result is that there is no substantive gain to the released joint promisor.

This also marks a departure from the English Common Law, according to which a discharge of one joint promisor amounts to a discharge of all, unless the creditor expressly preserves his rights against them.

Devolution of joint rights [Section 45]

When a person has made a promise to two or more persons jointly, then, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract, the right to claim performance rests, as between him and them) with them during their joint lives, and, after the death of any of them, with the representatives of such deceased person jointly with the survivor or survivors, and after the death of the last survivor, with the representatives of all jointly.

Illustration: A, in consideration of 5000 rupees, lent to him by B and C, promises B and C jointly to repay them that sum with interest on a day specified- B dies. The right to claim performance rests with B’s representative jointly with C during Cs life, and after the death of C with the representatives of B and C jointly.


PreviousNext


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



  1. State, in brief, the grounds on the basis of which a contract is discharged under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 /
    When a contract may be discharged under the provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872 . Explain in detail.

    see in detail

  2. State the essentials of a valid tender.
    see in detail

  3. “The basic rule is that the promisor must perform exactly what he has promised to perform.” Explain stating the obligation of parties to the contract.
    see in detail

  4. From whom can the performance be claimed? Explain.
    see in detail

  5. Ganesh, Suresh and Mahesh are partners of software business jointly promise to pay ₹ 30,000 to Rupesh. Over a period of time Suresh became insolvent, but his assets are sufficient to pay one-forth of his debts. Mahesh is compelled to pay the whole. Decide whether Mahesh is required to pay whole amount himself to Rupesh in discharging joint promise?
    see in detail