Fraudulent Misrepresentation by a Company - UK Landmark (Derry v. Peek)

(1889) LR 14 App Cas 337

1. The prospectus of a train company (defendant Company) stated that on the basis of a new law they could use steam powered trams instead of horse powered ones.

2. On the basis of this information, the plaintiff bought shares in the company.

3. However, the information was not completely accurate since the use of steam power was subject to approval of the Board of Trade. The right to use had never been refused before and the defendant company honestly believed that they would get the approval.

4. The Board of Trade refused and the company wound up. The plaintiff sued the Chairman and 4 directors of the defendant company.

5. It was held by the House of Lords that the statement was made in honest belief and hence did not amount to fraud. A statement would be fraudulent only if made (a) knowing it to be false; (b) without believing it to be true; (b) recklessly without taking care if it was true or not.

Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

Object of the Act

An Act to make provision for the application of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) to Muslims

Main provisions of the Act

Notwithstanding any customs or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). (Sec 2)

Any person who satisfies the prescribed authority that he is:

·         A Muslim;

·         Competent to contract;

·         Resident of territories to which this Act extends (whole of India except J&K).

 May by declaration in the prescribed form and filed before the prescribed authority, declare that he desires to obtain the benefit of the Muslim Personal law (Shariat) and thereafter the provisions of Shariat law shall apply to the declarant and all his minor children and their descendants and in addition matters relating to adoptions, wills and legacies will also be included - Sec 3(1).

If the prescribed authority refuses to accept the declaration stated above, the person desiring to make the same may appeal to such officer as the State Government may, by general or special order, appoint in this behalf and such officer may, if he is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to make the declaration, order the prescribed authority to accept the same Sec 3(2).

State Government may make rules to carry out the provisions under this Act (Sec 4).

_________________________________________________________________________________

Intellectual Property and Website Management

Company should consider the following intellectual property issues while setting up its website:

Domain Name Issues: If the Company trademark is already registered, the company can obtain a domain name. It can also prevent cybersquatters from infringing its mark by filing proceedings before the ICANN under the UDRP policy.

E-Commerce issues: The jurisdiction for disputes will have to be specified and an arbitration clause may also be added.

Copyright issues: The Company should specify on the website itself that the content has copyright protection and any infringement will lead to proceedings. The company should cross-check that it is not infringing anyone’s copyright.

Trademark Issues: Trademark registration should also be obtained and specified on the website so that nobody can infringe the company’s trademarks. The company should cross-check that it is not infringing anyone’s trademarks.

Patent Issues: with the advent of business methods patents it has also become necessary to ensure that the company’s technology and business model is not infringing that of any other’s.  If the company has any unique business ideas; it can also apply to have them patented.

Specific web-development issues:

Meta Tags issues: Meta Tags are invisible codes inserted in the website to help search engines in locating them. It helps to determine how much higher the website will appear when a search is conducted. Meta Tags should be inserted carefully to make sure that the company does not use a tag that uses a competitor’s name to obtain priority in the search.

Caching Issues: Caching involves storing of webpages on the server and computer, thus making the webpage easily available on the next search. Caching may lead to copyright infringement. 

Linking Issues: Linking helps to allow access to a different website. On one hand it is a great source to exchange information and on the other it is potential threat to intellectual property of the owner whose website has been linked.

Online Content Framing Issues: Framing may be a bigger threat than linking since it means putting another website’s content on your own and may give rise to confusion in the minds of the consumers regarding trademarks and logos.  

________________________________________________________________________

DPS MMS Scandal Case

Avnish Bajaj v State (NCT) of Delhi

Citation: (2005) 3 CompLJ 364 Del, 116 (2005)DLT 427

Facts:

An internet website (Baazee.com) offered for sale a video clip, shot on a mobile phone, of 2 children of a school in Delhi indulging in a sexually explicit act.

The petitioner, MD of the company that owned the site (Baazee.com India Ltd.), has asked to annul his prosecution for the offence of making available for sale and causing to be published an obscene product within the meaning of sec 292 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec 67 of the Information Technology Act.

 Baazee.com was a wholly owned subsidiary of Ebay.Inc, USA, and the website was during the relevant period in the process of being renamed as Ebay India Private Limited.

The website provided an online platform where buyers and sellers could get in touch with each other. To be a buyer or seller a person has to register himself with baazee.com by filling an online form with details like age (the person has to be above 18 years of age), email id, etc. The person also has to choose an appropriate baazee ID and password.

Ravi Raj, a fourth year student at IIT Kharagpur was registered as a seller on Baazee.com since 21^st July, 2004. He had been using the site for listing products for sale. His email ID was psell@sify.com.

On 27^th November, 2004, Ravi Raj placed on the site an MMS video clip for sale at Rs.125 a piece.  He adopted the seller’s name as Alice Electronics and gave the address as 12-A/39, Roshpa Tower, Main Road, Malanche, Kharagpur.

In order to avoid being detected by the filters installed by Baazee.com, he included the clip under the category of “Books and Magazines” and sub-category “e-books.” Although Baazee.com has a filter for some of the words on the site, the listing nevertheless took place. The word “sex” at serial No.23 and “sexual” at serial No.70 were part of the suspected words.

The site when visited had the following item description “Item 27877408-DPS Girls having fun!!!full video+Baazee points.” The price was Rs.125 and under the column seller’s details the name was “alice elec” and Location as Kharagpur.

Upon clicking on the item’s description, the listing read as under –

‘DPS Girls having fun!!! Do you want to see the video that which has rocked the whole Delhi and now has become a hot point of discussion in the entire Nation?

YES, Then what are you waiting for!!!

Just order for this product and it will be delivered to you within few hours.

This video is of a girl of DPS RK PURAM which has been filmed by her boyfriend in very sexual explicit conditions.

Please Note: This video clip of around 2:30 minutes and will be send to you as an email attachment.

The interested buyer had to click on the “Buy Now” option and make payment through credit card or “Paisa Pay” option. The buyer had to pay Rs.128 per clip which included a commission of Rs.3 that went to Baazee.com. This was deducted from the amount received from the buyer and the balance of Rs.125 was remitted to the seller through HDFC Bank. The seller on receiving confirmation that payment had been made, would send the video clip by an email attachment by a zip file with the description “dps_rkpuram-sex-scandle.zip”

Between 8.30 p.m. in the evening of November 27^th 2004 when the listing went online till around 10 a.m. on 29^th November when the listing was de-activated, eight transactions of sale took place across the country.

At around 8.20 p.m. on 27^th November 2004 information was received by Baazee.com from Amit Vohra stating that a person is trying to sell a video which is illegal in India as it was shot on two people who are below the age of 18 years and pornography is illegal in India. He further advised Baazee.com to sort out the issue and report it to legal authorities as this could get their site into trouble.

The email was assigned to Namrata of Baazee.com at around 8.25 pm on 27^th November, 2004 itself who assigned it to Swapna Sawant on the next day and the priority was shifted to “high alert” category.

On 29^th November, 2004, Baazee.com wrote to Alice Electronics at 10.10 a.m. that it had noticed that the listings put on the site by them were either obscene or pornographic in nature. They further informed the seller that they have closed the item since it is against the user agreement. The video clip was removed on 29^th November, 2004 at around 10.38 a.m. 8 persons with different IDs were located in different parts of the country including Calcutta, Pune, Bangalore, Delhi, Nellore and Chennai who had made the purchase.

On 9^th December, the Crime Branch of Delhi Police on receiving credible information that the video was being sold for Rs. 125, registered FIR No.645 of 2004. On the same day a news item appeared in a newspaper “Today” saying “DPS sex video at Baazee.com”    

The police sent notices under Sec 91 of the CrPC to the petitioner and Sharat Digumarti, the Senior Manager, Trust and Safety, Baazee.com and obtained information on the working of the site.

On 17^th December, 2004, Ravi Raj was arrested at Kharagpur and certain recoveries were effected from him including the CPU containing the hard disk of the computer from where the email attachments of the offending video clips were despatched. The petitioner was arrested on the same day in Mumbai. He was later released on bail on 21^st December, 2004. At the conclusion of the investigations, a charge sheet was filed showing Ravi Raj, Avnish Bajaj and Sharat Digumarti as accused Nos. 1,2 and 3.

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 14^th February 2006 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 292 and 294, IPC and Sec 67 of the IT Act. Ravi Raj has been absconding and his trial has been separated.

Petitioner Arguments (advanced by Mr.Arun Jaitley and Mr.Sidharth Luthra)

Baazee.com is not and cannot be liable since the clip itself was not made available on the site. The clip was transferred directly from the seller to the buyer without the intervention of the website.

No criminal liability could be attached to the petitioner just because he was the MD at the time of the offence. The revenue was generated by the website and not by the petitioner and it was not profit as contemplated under Sec 292 of IPC.

Criminal liability cannot be fastened lightly in the absence of a specific case being made out against the petitioner.

State Arguments (advanced by Ms.Mukta Gupta)

The offence under Sec 292 of IPC includes not only overt acts but also illegal omissions. The failure to have adequate safeguards in an automated system entails serious consequences.

The website earned profits through the Rs.3 commission it made on every sale.

The petitioner was in charge of policy and planning.

Judgement

Sec 292 of the Indian Penal Code was referred to.

292. Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc. (IPC)

(1) For the purposes of Sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is. if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

(2) Whoever-

(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

Sharat Digumarti was the Senior Manager, Trust and Safety who was responsible for maintaining the subject and banned key word list and ensuring that no lascivious material is listed for sale on the website. However, he did not take appropriate measures to ensure that the list of banned and suspect words is updated keeping in mind social norms. Although the website ran on a 24*7 basis, no person was deputed by him from his unit to review listings and to respond to alerts generated by the system. The filters claimed to be in operation have been found to be grossly inadequate.

There is no prima facie case against the petitioner in his individual capacity under Sec 292 of IPC. A director does not automatically become liable for the criminal acts of the company.

Sec 85 of the Information Technology Act was referred to.

Section 85 - Offences by companies

(1) Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-

(i)                  "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(ii)                "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees (Sec 67 of the IT Act).

On observing Sec 85 of the Information Technology Act, it has been found that the company alone may be prosecuted. The person-in-charge may be prosecuted. The conniving officer may be prosecuted. Any or all of them may be prosecuted.

A prima facie case for the offence was made out against the Baazee.com company under Sec 292 of IPC.

No prima facie case is made out against Avnish Bajaj under Sec 292 of IPC.

The petitioner (Avnish Bajaj) is therefore discharged from liability under Sec 292 and 294 of IPC.

This does not affect the case against the other accused.

A prima facie case against the petitioner is made out under Sec 67 read with Sec 85 of the IT Act. The law recognizes the deemed criminal liability of the directors in these cases even when the company is not arraigned and it is possible that the company may still be called to trial at a later stage.

Prosecution of the petitioner under Sec 67 read with Sec 85 of IT Act will continue. The learned trial court will proceed to the next stage of passing an order uninfluenced by the fact that a prima facie case has been made out. Petition and the application disposed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 - India

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (“Nuclear Liability Act” or the “Act”) came into force from November 11, 2011 in wake of the Indo-US nuclear deal of 2008, to provide prompt compensation to victims of nuclear incidents through a no-fault liability regime.

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board constituted under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 is required to notify a nuclear incident within a period of fifteen days from the date of occurrence of the incident.

Under the Act, the operator of the nuclear installation is held liable for nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident.

“Operator” is defined as the Central Government or any authority or corporation established by it or a Government company who has been granted a licence pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 for the operation of that installation.

The liability of the operator shall be strict and based on a principle of no-fault liability. The nuclear incident could have occurred at the nuclear installation or during transport of nuclear material, in which case the consignor shall be deemed to be the operator.

The maximum liability is fixed at three hundred million Special Drawing Rights (international reserve asset maintained by the International Monetory Fund with which currency can be exchanged).

The liability for each nuclear incident is as follows:

Nuclear reactors having thermal power equal to or above 10 MW, Rs.1,500 crores.

For spent fuel reprocessing plants, Rs.300 crores.

For research reactors having thermal power below 10 MW, fuel cycle facilities other than spent fuel reprocessing plants and transportation of nuclear materials, Rs.100 crores.

The Central Government is responsible for a nuclear damage incident to the extent the liability exceeds that of the operator.

The operator is required to take out an insurance policy covering his liability before starting nuclear operations (does not apply to a nuclear installation owned by the Central Government).

Whoever suffers nuclear damage is entitled to claim compensation from the Claims Commissioner for such area, appointed by the Central Government. The application is required to be made within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of nuclear damage by the person suffering such damage. However, the right to claim extinguishes if claim is not made within a period of ten years, in case of damage to property and twenty years in case of personal injury to person from the date of occurrence of the nuclear incident as notified.

Application to register “Jesus” as a trademark for jeans rejected in UK

An application to register “Jesus” for jeans has been rejected in UK by the Patent Office Registrar sometime in 2003. Along with UK it has been rejected in many other countries including Germany, Switzerland, China, Hungary and Ireland. However, the brand was registered in Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, France, Italy and Spain.

It was held that it has religious significance and would be “morally offensive” and not merely distasteful based on the views of right thinking members of the public. The application was rejected under section 3(3)(a) of the Trademarks Act, 1994 since it was “contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality.”

It was further held that the name “Jesus” would be debased if used to sell jeans and other personal use products like soaps and shoes and most British people would associate the name “Jesus” with the son of God.

Why are unmarried women not allowed abortion on grounds of failure of contraceptives in India?

When pregnancies maybe terminated by a registered medical practitioner (Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971)

A Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) will not be liable under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law if a pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with this Act.

A pregnancy maybe terminated if where the pregnancy does not exceed 12 weeks a RMP and if it exceeds 12 weeks but not 20 weeks, 2 RMPs are of opinion formed in GOOD FAITH, that:

Pregnancy involves risk to the life of the woman or of any grave physical/mental injury;

Substantial risk that if the child is born it would suffer from physical/mental abnormalities to make it seriously handicapped;

A pregnancy caused by rape or failure of contraceptives used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting children is considered as grave injury to a woman’s mental health;

In order to determine if a pregnancy would cause a woman injury, her actual/reasonably foreseeable environment may be taken into account;

Pregnancy of a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years or who has attained the age of 18 years but is a lunatic will not be terminated without taking her guardian’s written consent and in any other case a pregnancy will not be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.

It can be seen that failure of contraceptives does not come as a valid ground for abortion in case of unmarried girls. The legislation may therefore be considered regressive in its assuming that failure of contraceptives should only be a reason for married women to seek abortion. An unmarried girl can still seek remedy under the general clause of mental injury but in India, doctors are always hesitant to perform such abortions.  

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 - India

Object of the Act - An Act to provide for public liability- insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Payment of Relief

Where any death or injury (injury includes permanent total or permanent partial disability or sickness arising out of an accident) is caused to any person (OTHER THAN A WORKMAN, workman has the same meaning as assigned under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923) or damage to any property has resulted from an accident, the owner shall be liable to give such relief as specified in the Schedule.

Schedule

Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred up to a maximum of Rs. 12,500 in each case.

For fatal accidents the relief will be Rs. 25,000 per person in addition to reimbursement of medical expenses if any, incurred on the victim up to a maximum of Rs. 12,500.

For permanent total or permanent partial disability or other injury or sickness, the relief will be (a) reimbursement of medical expenses incurred, if any, up to a maximum of Rs. 12,500 in each case and (b) cash relief on the basis of percentage of disablement as certified by an authorised physician. The relief for total permanent disability will be Rs. 25,000.

For loss of wages due to temporary partial disability which reduces the earning capacity of the victim, there will be a fixed monthly relief not exceeding Rs. 1,000 per month up to a maximum of 3 months: provided the victim has been hospitalised for a period of exceeding 3 days and is above 16 years of age.

Up to Rs. 6,000 depending on the actual damage, for any damage to private property.

Owner

"Owner" means a person who owns, or has control over handling any hazardous substance at the time of accident and includes,-

In the case of firm, any of its partners;

In the case of an association, any of its members; and

In the case or a company, any of its directors, managers, secretaries or other officers who is directly in charge of, and is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.

Other provisions:

Every owner shall take out, before he starts handling any hazardous substance, one or more insurance policies providing for contracts of insurance for insurance against liability to give relief as mentioned above.

Any owner handling hazardous substances before the commencement of this Act, shall take out insurance policies within 1 year.

Every owner shall get the insurance policies renewed from time to time before the expiry of validity thereof so that the insurance policies may remain in force throughout the period during which the handling is continued.

No insurance policy shall be of an amount less than the amount of paid up capital of the undertaking handling any hazardous substance and owned or controlled by that owner and more than that amount, not exceeding fifty crore rupees as maybe prescribed.

Every owner shall, together with the premium, pay to the insurer, for being credited to the Relief Fund, such further amount, not exceeding the amount of premium, as maybe prescribed.

Insurer shall remit the further amount to the Relief Fund in prescribed form and manner and if he fails to do so, the amount shall be recoverable from the insurer as arrears of land revenue or of public demand.

Central Government may exempt any Central/State Government, corporation owned or controlled by the Central/State Government or local authority, provided that the owner exempted has established and maintained a fund for meeting the liability imposed by this Act.

When it comes to the notice of a Collector that an accident has occurred within his jurisdiction, he shall verify occurrence of the accident and cause publicity to be given in a  manner he deems fit for inviting applications.

An application for claiming relief maybe made:

By the person who has sustained injury;

By the owner of the property to which damage has been caused;

Where death has resulted from the accident, by the legal representatives of the deceased;

By any agent duly authorized by any of the above.

No application for relief shall be entertained unless made within 5 years of the accident.

On receipt of application, the Collector shall after giving notice of the application to the owner and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claims and make an award determining the amount of relief he deems fit and specifying the person/s to whom the relief shall be paid.

Collector shall arrange copies of the award to be delivered to the parties concerned within 15 days from the date of the award.

When an award is made:

an insurer who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award, shall within a period of 30 days, deposit the amount in such manner as the Collector may direct;

The Collector shall arrange to pay from the Relief Fund, in terms of such award, such amount and in such manner as maybe prescribed under the Scheme.

The owner shall deposit such amount within such period and in such manner as the Collector may direct.

Where the owner fails to deposit the amount of such award within the specified period, such amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue or of public demand.

Any claim shall be disposed of within 3 months from receipt of the claim.

Where an owner is likely to remove or dispose of any of his property with a view to avoid making payment of the amount given in the award the Collector may in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, grant a temporary injunction to restrain it.

Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a fund to be known as the Environment Relief Fund which will be utilized for paying, in accordance with the Act and the scheme, relief under the award made by the Collector. The Central Government may make a scheme specifying the manner in which the Fund shall be administered and the payment of relief therefrom. The right to claim under this scheme shall be over and above any other law for the time being in force.

If the Central Government or any person authorized by the Government has reason to believe that any owner has been handling any hazardous substance in contravention of this Act, that Government or that person, as the case maybe, shall make an application to the Court, not inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for restraining such owner from such handling and the Court may pass such order as it deems fit.

Whoever contravenes any provisions relating to the taking out of insurance policies or does not follow any of the directions issued by the Central Government shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months and which may extend to six years, or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or with both. Whoever contravenes any of the aforesaid provisions for the second time, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than 2 years and which may extend to 7 years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

If an owner fails to supply any information as demanded by a person authorized in this regard by the Central Government or obstructs the Government in the exercise of its functions with imprisonment which may extend to three months and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

_______________________________________________________________________

Communicating acceptance of Contract - English Contract Law

Felthouse v Bindley

Citation: (1862) EWHC CP J 35

This case lays down the rule that acceptance of an offer has to be communicated to the person making the offer himself. Communication of acceptance to anyone else will not amount to a valid acceptance.

The uncle (Plaintiff) was negotiating the price of a horse with his nephew. There was some misunderstanding regarding the price following which the uncle wrote to the nephew, “If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30-15.”

The nephew did not reply since he was busy but told his auctioneer (Defendant) not to sell the horse since it was already sold. The auctioneer sold it by mistake.

Plaintiff brought an action for conversion against the Defendant. The question before the court was if a valid contract had been entered into.

It was held that no valid contract had been formed since the acceptance of the offer was not communicated to the person making it. 

Intention to enter into contract - English Contract Law

Balfour v Balfour 

Citation: [1919] 2 KB 571

This case deals with whether legal intention to enter into contract is necessary for a valid contract. Some social promises may not be contracts if the intention of the parties was never to enter into contractual relations.

The husband (Defendant) lived in Ceylon and agreed to make monthly payments of 30 pounds to his wife (Plaintiff) who lived in England (due to a medical condition).

Later, the relations between them got spoilt and the Defendant stopped sending the money to the Plaintiff.   

The court held that arrangements made between husband and wife did not amount to a legally enforceable contract. The Plaintiff was not entitled to recover the money. 

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

All registrars under ICANN must follow the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a Registrar will cancel, suspend or transfer a domain name.

There are three requirements that need to be proved by an aggrieved trademark owner against an erring domain name registrant, also known as cyber squatting. The first is that the domain name should be identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s trademark; second is that the erring registrant does not have a legitimate right to use the same and third is that the domain name is being registered and used in bad faith. The question whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar is a question of fact. Aural similarity is enough to prove infringement, like in the case of Rediff and Radiff. The infringing domain name is not legitimate when the registration has primarily been done to disrupt the owner’s business and without any bona fide use. The most widespread instance of registration and use in bad faith is when customers get attracted to the violative trademark on account of confusion, thereby causing loss to the trademark owner and unconscionable gain to the registrant. The three common consequences of the proceedings are cancellation, transferring and sustaining the trademark (in case the action fails). The infringing domain name may be removed or transferred to the original owner (HarryPotterinHollywood.com and HarryPotterFilm.org were be transferred to Time Warner's as the rightful owner). In a famous case the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ruled that the website named Madonna.com was registered and being used in bad faith since it would tarnish the reputation of famous pop singer Madonna.[1] In November, 1997, five companies[2]  sued entrepreneurs Richard Conway and Julian Nicholson, who registered the famous British company names as domains for resale.[3]

The first case in India on cyber squatting was Yahoo Inc. v Akash Arora and Anr., 1999 PTC (19) 201 in which the defendant had launched a site YahooIndia.com similar to the world-famous Yahoo Inc. He was held liable for passing off and restrained from using the domain name in future.

---

[1] October 12, 2000

[2] BT, Marks & Spencer, Ladbroke, J. Sainsbury, and Virgin

[3] Marks and Spencer Plc v. One in a Million, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division CH 1997 M.5403 (Nov. 28, 1997); Court of Appeal - 7/23/98)

Dowry Prohibition Law in India

Definition of “Dowry” (Sec 2)

In this act, `dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

(a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) By the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

The expression `valuable security’ has the same meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code.

" Valuable security".-- The words" valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or who hereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.

Penalty for giving/taking dowry (Sec 3)

Any person who gives/takes or abets giving/taking of dowry shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than 5 years and fine which shall not be less than Rs.15000 or the amount of value of such dowry, whichever is more.

The Court may for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may be less than 5 years.

This section will not be applicable in case of presents given to the bride/bridegroom without demand. 

Such presents have to be entered in a list in accordance with the rules made under this Act.

Where the presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or anyone related to the bride, such presents should be of a customary nature and their value should not be excessive compared to the financial status of the person by whom or on whose behalf they are being given.

Penalty for demanding dowry (Sec 4)

A person who demands dowry from the parents/relatives/guardian of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 2 years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

The Court may for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may be less than 6 months.

Ban on Advertisement (Sec 4A)

Any person who:

Offers, through advertisement in any newspaper, periodical, journal or any other media any share in his property/money/share in any business/any other consideration for the marriage of his/her daughter/son/any other relative;

Prints/publishes/circulates any advertisement related to the above shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 5 years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 15,000.

Agreement for giving/taking dowry void (Sec 5)

Any agreement for giving/taking dowry is void.

Dowry for the benefit of the wife or heirs (Sec 6)

Where dowry is received by any woman other than the bride, such person shall transfer it to the bride:

If received before marriage, within 3 months of date of marriage;

If received at the time of or after marriage, within 3 months of its receipt;

If received when woman was minor, within 3 months of her attaining majority and shall hold it in trust for her till then;

If any person fails to transfer within the time specified, he shall be liable for imprisonment for a term not less than 6 months but which may extend to 2 years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs.5000 but which may extend to Rs.10000 or with both.

If the bride dies, her heirs will be entitled to inherit the property, provided that:

If a woman dies within 7 years of marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property shall –

o   If she has no children be transferred to her parents;

o   If she has children be transferred to such children and pending the transfer, be held in trust for such children.

Cognizance of offences (Sec 7)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the CRPC, no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act;

Offences to be non-bailable and non-compoundable (Sec 8)

Every offence under this Act is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.