Question

Right before her board exam, Sanyuktha’s mother promises to buy her a bike if she scored an overall A+. Sanyuktha scores an A+, but now her mother refuses to buy her a bike. Can Sanyuktha sue her mother?

• A. Yes, there was a valid contract since her mother had promised her.
• B. No, there was a valid contract but she cannot sue because her mother did not mean it.
• C. Yes, it was a valid contract.
• D. No, there was no valid contract since there was no legal intention to enter into a contract.

Hint:

Domestic and social agreements are generally not legally enforceable due to the absence of intention to create legal relations.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the facts.
The promise made by Sanyuktha’s mother was a domestic and social arrangement intended to motivate her daughter to perform well in her examinations. Such promises are common in family settings and are not usually meant to create legal obligations.
Step 2: Legal principle involved.
For a valid contract to exist under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, there must be an intention to create legal relations. Agreements of a domestic or social nature are generally presumed to lack such legal intention.
Step 3: Application to the present case.
Although Sanyuktha fulfilled the condition by scoring an A+, the promise was made within a family relationship and lacked the intention to be legally binding. Therefore, it does not amount to a valid contract enforceable by law.
Step 4: Examination of options.
(A) Incorrect, as a mere promise does not create a contract without legal intention.
(B) Incorrect, because the issue is not whether the mother meant it, but whether there was legal intention.
(C) Incorrect, as the agreement lacks enforceability in law.
(D) Correct, since there was no intention to enter into a legal contract.
Step 5: Conclusion.
Since the promise was a domestic arrangement without legal intention, no valid contract existed. Hence, Sanyuktha cannot sue her mother.