Question

As per the rules and the given facts, who coerces whom?

• A. Aadil coerces Baalu.
• B. Baalu coerces Chulbul.
• C. Dhanraj coerces Chulbul.
• D. None of the above.
• A. There is undue influence exercised by Dhanraj on Baalu.
• B. There is undue influence exercised by Aadil on Chulbul.
• C. There is no undue influence.
• D. None of the above.
• A. Justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Chulbul was coerced by Dhanraj.
• B. Justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Baalu was complicit in the coercive act.
• C. Not justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Baalu was an innocent person and has not coerced Chulbul.
• D. Both (a) and (b).
• A. He is the best friend of Aadil.
• B. It was his father, and not he, who used coercion against Chulbul.
• C. Chulbul has promised his father to employ him.
• D. None of the above.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understand the legal definition of coercion

Rule A: Using threats to force someone into a contract is called coercion.
Rule C: If coercion exists, the contract is voidable by the coerced party.

Step 2: Apply facts to identify who threatened whom

Dhanraj (father of Baalu) threatens Chulbul over a phone call.
The threat: If Chulbul does not make Baalu CEO, Aadil will be killed.
This clearly constitutes a threat under Rule A — hence, coercion.
Chulbul is thus forced to sign the contract under coercion.

Step 3: Eliminate incorrect options

(a) Incorrect — Aadil is the victim, not the coercer.
(b) Incorrect — Baalu is a beneficiary, but the threat came from Dhanraj.
(d) Incorrect — coercion clearly occurred.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(c)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Understand what constitutes undue influence (Rule D)

Undue influence requires a pre-existing relationship where one party is in a position to dominate the will of the other.
The influencing party takes advantage of this relationship to obtain consent to a contract.

Step 2: Apply to the facts

Chulbul and Dhanraj — No evidence of a close or dependent relationship.
Chulbul and Aadil — Aadil is a victim, not in a position to dominate Chulbul.
Dhanraj's actions constitute coercion (a threat to life), not undue influence.
No evidence of any relationship of trust or domination — hence, undue influence does not apply.

Step 3: Eliminate incorrect options

(a) Incorrect — No such relationship or influence from Dhanraj on Baalu is described.
(b) Incorrect — Aadil has no influence over Chulbul; he was abducted.
(d) Incorrect — because (c) is correct.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(c)}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Recall Rule C – Coercion

Rule C defines coercion as using threats to force someone into a contract.
The person coerced can refuse to perform the contract.

Step 2: Apply facts

Dhanraj threatened Chulbul that Aadil would be killed unless Baalu was made CEO.
Baalu was directly involved — he abducted Aadil and was complicit in the threat.
Hence, Chulbul’s consent was obtained by coercion and he is justified in refusing the contract.

Step 3: Eliminate wrong options

(a) Correct — Dhanraj used coercion on Chulbul.
(b) Correct — Baalu’s involvement makes it worse.
(c) Incorrect — Baalu was not innocent.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(d)}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Rule on Coercion (Rule C)

If a person is forced into a contract due to threats, the contract is not binding.
Even if someone else made the threat, what matters is that the consent was not free.

Step 2: Apply to facts

Chulbul was coerced by Dhanraj (Baalu’s father).
Baalu was complicit — he abducted Aadil. The benefit of the coercion was for Baalu.
Therefore, regardless of who gave the threat, the beneficiary (Baalu) cannot enforce the contract.

Step 3: Eliminate options

(a) Irrelevant — being Aadil’s friend has no legal bearing.
(b) Invalid — beneficiary of coercion cannot claim relief.
(c) Promises made to third parties do not make coerced contracts enforceable.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(d)}} \]