Doctrine of consensus and satisfaction

Accord and satisfaction are purchases of releases from obligations even if they arise due to contracts or torts by precious consideration, not the actual outcome of the obligation itself. This contract is a contract under which obligation is carried out. Satisfaction is a consideration for enabling contracts. Consideration may be an obligation to execute.

Agreements without satisfaction are ineffective under British law. In Indian law, agreement is agreement, agreement is necessary. Apart from the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the India Contract Act (1872), its credibility is justified by the general law of the contract.

Responsibility due to breach of contract may be abandoned by principle of agreement and satisfaction. An agreement is a contract after a certain consideration other than legal remedies is accepted by a party who is not unjust and after the performance of the substitutional consideration has been carried out.

The question is whether the arbitration clause of the contract has survived the satisfying satisfaction of the contract terms. Normally, agreement and satisfaction will not affect the arbitration clause, even if the rights and obligations of both parties are reached, the contract will not be terminated. In the case of a dispute in which the contract itself does not survive, the problem of calling the arbitration clause may not be raised. However, we may rely on the arbitration clause if the contract is deemed to survive.

There are many basic principles in the principle of agreement and satisfaction, including acceptance of less money and acceptance of satisfaction. Pardon council, Payan Reena Saminathan v. I have an opinion on the doctrine of Puna Lana Palaniappa [41 IA 142]. The doctrine in India and its usage derives from the American common law law.

Textbook background

According to Article 63 of the Indian Contract Law, contract parties can abolish the fulfillment of the counterparty's contract, extend the time of fulfillment, or accept other disputes instead of fulfillment.

On the other hand, according to Article 62 of the Indian Contract Act, everyone who accepts the proposal can pay or pay full or partial fulfillment of the proposal accepted by him. I can not accept such acting or accepting the satisfaction that I think fitted his opinion.

According to paragraph 62 and paragraph 63 of the Indian Contract Act (1872), a party who has the right to demand performance,

(I) Pay out performance or pay performance. Egypt
(Ii) Extend the performance time. Egypt
(Iii) accepting other satisfaction levels instead of performance.

Sections 63 and 62 must be interpreted not to overlap each other. This can be done by maintaining the consent form mentioned in Article 62. This is a contract that will have a minor impact on the rights of both parties to the contract abandoned by such contract. What is mentioned in Article 63 seems to affect the rights of one party.

In the former case, there is the possibility of mutual abandonment of rights or mutual arrangement of fresh obligations, or abandonment of one right and abandonment of the other. It only happens if the agreement to eliminate affects the rights of the sole party and finds out that the consideration is wanted. Indian legislation alone deviates from British law by establishing provisions for all such possibilities in Article 63 under Article 63. As a result, the agreement established by the defense corresponding to Article 63,

This section accepts and continues to enforce satisfaction to claim that defendant was rescued from defendant's actions that the defendant claimed not to need, in a lawsuit promised, dispensed, or delayed execution. In the case of New Standard Bank Ltd. v. Probodh Chandra Chakravarty, [AIR 1942 Cal 87]An agreement concluded between the parties after a breach of contract under this provision.

Differences from British contract law:

Under British law, it is competent to both parties of the executive agreement through unsatisfactory mutual agreement to exempt the contract obligation. In other words, conflicting promises are sufficient considerations for each other, and there are conflicting consultations. Contracts canceled by agreement are completely abandoned and can not be resurrected.

However, executed contracts can not be withdrawn except for disclosure or undertaking of obligations under the seal, such as payment obligation to be made by payment. Under that exception, a new contract in the cancellation or change of the previous contract generally occurs due to a breach of the contract, as it must satisfy all the requirements of the independent contract.

This section is largely out of the laws of the UK and the principles of that law can not be trusted to interpret this section. The intention of this section to change the rule of common law is clear. This is recognized in some Indian cases.

Necessity of satisfaction in contract:

In 1903, the Bombay High Court, (Abaji Sitaram Modak v. Trimbak Municipality), appeals or pardon under this provision shall be governed by the provisions of Article 2 (b) or the agreement of Article 2 (e) The assumption that there was a technically accepted grace or remission proposal, as assumed, suggests that the effect of this clause is only to enable good faith agreement in an unsatisfactory state It is that.
Many lawyers continually protest against this ruling and that words of sections purchased to be interpreted according to their natural meaning and promises can discard their promises without a new agreement without consideration It suggests.

View of the Privy Council:

The principle of agreement and satisfaction is Reena Saminathan v. In the case of Puna Lana Palaniappa, it is indicated by the Council of the Privy Council as a principle of replacement agreement [41 IA 142] And UOI v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros [AIR 1959 SC 1362] . :

"Receipts" given by the appellant, accepted by the accused and acted by the parties definitively prove that all parties have agreed to settle all the existing disputes. ;receipt. This is an example that was well-known by law and is complaining of agreement and satisfaction due to the termination of the contract so far. As a result, if such consensus or satisfaction is required, in fact, it will be extinguished by the new rights, the new contract will be a new starting point, and the rights of all parties will be expressed entirely. "

There have been two interpretations of this doctrine. In circumstances where parties who are not careless are satisfied instead of the original consideration, the most important is when you are deemed less satisfied until the previous contract is dissolved.

Essential elements of doctrine

The principle of agreement and satisfaction is purely a way to waive the claim that parties agree to settle claims and make consent, agreement is agreement, its performance or performance is satisfactory, redemption A new agreement to replace the former agreement made, or a contract that is effective against a settled obligation or litigation cause.

In order to foster agreement and satisfaction, there must have been a real conflict resolved by the mind meeting with intention to compromise. If there is an actual dispute, agreements and satisfaction may be used to resolve it. Disputes may arise due to contracts or torts. It may result from car crash, ordering, failed offer of orange being paid, refusal to complete the building of the office building, etc.

Agreement and satisfaction can only be done by those with legal capacity to enter into contracts. For example, payment is not binding on madmen. Infants may have the right to refuse the contract. Therefore, someone like a guardian can agree and satisfy the person who fulfilled his / her responsibility by acting for a person who can not contract for himself, but the guardian said the lawsuit is a court .

Executor or administrator can bind real estate. Trustees can accept agreements and satisfaction for trust. An officer can negotiate a company's settlement.
Third parties may give something to satisfy party debt. In such a case, if the creditor accepts the offer and the debtor approves, participates or agrees to a subsequent contract, agreement and satisfaction will be achieved.

For example, a widow has a car accident, but since the wife died, it is impossible to make a lawsuit mentally. He willingly accept the offer of close friends to talk to other drivers who are threatening the lawsuit. Friends convince other drivers that both drivers have some degree of malfunction. Friends offer in writing that they will not demand damages resulting from the accident and offer to compensate other drivers for damages of $ 500. Family friends and other drivers sign copies of the other party's statements, respectively, and when payment is made, the agreement and satisfaction are perfect. If another driver complains to a widow with an accident due to an accident, the widow can show that his friend agreed to negotiate agreement and satisfaction, the court will deny the relief .

Most commonly, this is seen in situations where a person lacks the ability to agree and negotiate court proceedings, and those negotiating contracts will inform that the contract is best for the representative's interests You can oversee to confirm. People can also reach consensus and satisfaction for someone else more informally. For example, a parent may help an adult child act on behalf of the child to settle the problem and settle the debt to the landlord. However, the law sometimes requires the court to oversee the Guardian's case. Executor or administrator can bind real estate. Trustees can accept agreements and satisfaction for trust. An officer can negotiate a company's settlement.

Agreement and satisfaction are contracts and all essential elements of the contract must exist. The agreement must include a clear settlement application and an unconditional acceptance of the offer based on that condition. It must be final and clear, please end the problem covered, do not make anything unstable or answer the question. The agreement may require full payment or some compromise and does not need to be based on the initial agreement of the parties. It is not necessary to do so in writing unless it is within the scope of fraud law.

Unless there is a matter intentionally left outside the scope of agreement and satisfaction, we resolve the entire dispute between both parties. It will eliminate all obligations arising from subcontracting contracts or torts. If only one of two or more parties on one side is settled, this usually works to eject them all. The reason is that it is necessary to be satisfied with a single injury or incorrect case. This rule is satisfied for the purpose of solving the problem and it does not apply if accepted.

Agreements that are not satisfied generally do not mean anything. If you are completely satisfied, you will be able to defeat further claims by either party unless reached by fraud, obsessive or mutual mistake.

A legitimate contract stops the right to enforce based on the terms of the contract, not to cancel the previous contract. Both contracts (original and agreement) will be destroyed by performance of contract or performance of contract. If the creditor breaches the contract, the obligor can withdraw the existence of the agreement in order to prohibit any lawsuit against him.

The contract must be processed based on the new contract. It must have in advance the essential terms of the contract (parties, theme, time for fulfillment, and consideration). There is no "satisfaction" to violate the agreement if you violate the agreement. In this case, the non-violating party has the right to file a lawsuit under either the original contract or the contract.

Just maintaining the money that Promise sent does not exacerbate satisfaction. Whether the money is satisfactory or not is a question of facts to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the incident. Compensation for breach of contract is not a breach other than the original contract provision between the parties to the contract and the parties to the contract.

Acceptance of any satisfaction

According to the principle of agreement and satisfaction, promises may accept the satisfaction that he thinks fit, instead of fulfillment of promises. However, until the agreed satisfaction level continues to be enforced, the cause of the original action is not excluded. However, where promises satisfy and accept promises, the cause of the original action is resolved.

Manohur Koyal v. In the case of Thakur Das Naskar [(1888) ILR 15 Cal 319]The defense executed bonds of a certain amount favorable to the plaintiff, which is repayable at an annual interest rate of 18% on a certain day. If you do not pay on that day, the fee will be increased by 24% per year. A lawsuit was indicted on the repayment date and it was announced that it was no longer able to pay the same amount. Instead, he agreed to offer to pay 400 rubles of cash and issue another bond favorable to the claimant paid at a later date. Plaintiffs accepted these words, but the defenders did not do it. Plaintiffs appealed confidentiality obligors from the initial balance recovery and subsequent commitments. The court applied the Principles and Satisfaction Principles of Article 63 of the Indian Contract Act and gave the plaintiff's rights to the full amount requested by the plaintiff, the reason being that the claim accepted an appointment to execute another condition Stated. Condition as satisfaction of the contract after.

If the obligor is a contract between an obligee and a creditor to be sold and the creditor should accept any property that satisfies the obligation, it is operated in one of the following three ways.

(I) The contract itself can serve as an absolute refund of the obligation, giving the creditor only relief by concrete implementation of the contract. Egypt
(Ii) in the case of default by the obligor, the obligee functions only as a conditional obligation of the conditional obligation, and in the case of default of the obligee, the right to demand the performance of the contract, payment of the obligation. Egypt
(Iii) The contract may be an independent transaction in the sense that it does not affect the creditors' rights or obligations of the obligors until the actual sale is actually completed.

Of these methods, whether the contract is operated depends on the action of the parties in the specific case and the intention of the parties gathered from the circumstances, if there is no explicit provision.

It was held in the case of Sakarchand Shamji vs. Ismail Hoosein [AIR 1931 Rang 189]If the buyer accepts the promise to return loss of bread when violating the sale agreement and stated that one of the receipts was not paid in full within the specified time, the cause of the original action.

Ram Swaroop Mam Chand v. In case of Chhaju Ram & Sons [1937] 1 Cal 757]The court should refuse such satisfaction and make it possible to assert the performance of the contract according to the terms before the parties can say that they will accept things other than those stipulated to satisfy the contract The court judged there was.

Therefore, if the parties accepted another satisfaction rather than the original satisfaction of the claim, such unilateral action was applied under Article 63 of the Indian Contract Act.

Acceptance of LESSER SUM

Although the rule that the court does not matter the validity of the consideration is generally applicable, those that differ in type from those to be paid can obtain satisfactory satisfaction regardless of birth value, but 19 pounds It is not equal ~ 20 pounds. Correspondingly, there is no need to reduce the sum of the amounts already paid. This last rule is Foakes v. In the case of Beer, [1881 - 85] All ER staff 106].

However, Indian law does not require any consideration or agreement to fulfill promises, fulfill promises, or promise to accept other satisfactions instead of original satisfaction.

This is one of the most common manifestations of agreement and satisfaction doctrine. If the creditor agrees to accept voluntarily satisfying and accept a small amount and there is a real agreement on which the obligor acts on the basis of accepting it as the obligor pays the amount less than it, the obligee I will balance later.
The real emphasis lies in the debtor 's requirement that if all leased money is accepted, not acceptance of a smaller amount, it must be a refund of the entire debt. A creditor who accepts payment according to the condition can not accept payment and deny the condition. Such consensus and satisfaction is a matter of fact, which means agreement to take money to satisfy the claims sent. It prevents the creditor's promise from being charged under the original contract.

This is Maharashtra v. It was seen in the case of Nav Bharat Builders [(1994) SC 3 SCC 83]In a mutual agreement raising a lawsuit, the contactor agreed to respond to requests for amounts calculated under certain principles, labor disputes lawsuits and labor dispute cases to withdraw the lawsuit. I withdrew the lawsuit.

The same principle is PK Ramaiah v. CMD, National Thermal Power Corpn. [(1994) Supp 3 SCC 126]If a receipt is accepted by the claimant that accepts the final measurement of the completed work and a receipt is issued indicating that the amount has been received in a complete and final settlement, there is agreement and satisfaction, the credit is the right to charge the balance There was not.

Once the conflict is resolved in this way, no arbitration dispute remains and the arbitration clause can not be executed.

If checks smaller than liabilities are completely satisfied and remitted to the creditors, if the latter does not accept it, do not discharge the obligation. This depends on the intent of the parties described in the details of the transaction and the characteristics of the transaction.

For example, in the case of Union of India vs. Gang Garam Baghwanda [AIR 1977 MP 215], The railroad sent a smaller total check than the court petitioner's request with full and final satisfaction as a settlement of the claim. The plaintiff enclosed the check, but continued litigation due to the outstanding balance. The court asserted that the plaintiff did not accept checks with complete and final settlement when the plaintiffs continued the lawsuit.

Similarly, Tata Locomotive & Eng. Co. v. Sardar Kartar Singh [AIR 1961 Pat 37]Less checks were paid in full to the obligor and sent to creditors with a receipt that is fully satisfied and signed by the creditor. The check was cached but the receipt was not sent. Conversely, the remainder of the request was made before cashing the check. Payment was made so that it will not be a refund for the entire debt.

Furthermore, with respect to construction contracts, this does not mean that the contractor does not have the right to make a claim when the contractor accepts the final invoice. He was not excluded from raising the remaining claims by law. Jurisdiction is clearly justified under Article 63 of the Indian Contract Act since it requires consensus and satisfaction to pay debtors' debt.

Accepting more money is the total elimination of responsibility. Supreme court decision in Kapur Chand Godha v. Mir Nawab Himayatali Khan [(1963) 2 SCR 168] Illustration In this case, the liability exceeded the rupee's 27 lakhs. A committee was formed to solve this problem and the debtor provided debt of 200,000 yen with full obligation. Plaintiff, after the first protest, accepted the sum that he sent satisfactorily enough to his argument, declared that he received payment with complete satisfaction by observing the promise. After settlement, the creditor demanded the debtor a balance.

Judge SKDas insists that "the fact of the case is completely covered by Article 63 and its illustration (c)" and the petitioner who fully accepted the request has no right to file a lawsuit It was.

In order for this principle to lie, it is necessary to prove that an insecure party has accepted the agreement.

Complete satisfaction as Accord

It is a general rule that complete satisfaction coincides. That is, after the unaffiliated party is satisfied with the extension of the performance of the previous contract, the contract is completed and the other party can not cancel the performance of the part of the contract so formed.

There are some exceptions to this rule. If the parties sign a contract despite protests, the agreement will not be kept well. For example, in the case of Union of India vs. Gang Garam Baghwanda [AIR 1977 MP 215], The railroad sent a smaller total check than the court petitioner's request with full and final satisfaction as a settlement of the claim. The plaintiff enclosed the check, but continued litigation due to the outstanding balance. The court insisted that the plaintiff did not accept checks with a complete and final settlement when the plaintiffs continued the lawsuit, which was clearly a protest against acceptance of satisfaction.

Likewise, this rule does not apply if the second parties agree to an excessive impact, a wrong belief or a mandatory agreement. Also, if the second party reaches an agreement for agreement and satisfaction under harsh circumstances, Usman v. As in the case of Union of India, the doctrine does not apply.

Position of common law in the United States

In the US common law law, the term "agreement and satisfaction" is used to express "legal approval of acceptance of an obligee's proxy for an existing claim or original obligation". As a bound name obligation, agreement and satisfaction consists of two different parts. "Agreement" of agreement and satisfaction is an agreement under which the creditor pledges to accept the substitutional performance of existing claims or obligations. "Satisfaction" is that creditors actually accepted their proxy performance. These terms are used together and represent the legal consequences of accepting it as satisfying the performance of the agreement and the legal belief is the abandonment of the previous claim or obligation.

There are three requirements for effective emissions due to legitimate satisfaction of existing claims or obligations.
(1) existence of claims or obligations,
(2) provision and acceptance of alternative performance in full settlement, and
(3) Good consideration.

The first requirement, the existence of a prior claim or obligation, is clearly fulfilled in the hypothesis. Existing claims or obligations, without it,
Performance is substituted.

In order for the second requirement to be met, the offer and acceptance must be due to alternative achievements. In the common law method, it is necessary to distinguish between substitute substitution and substitute contract. The two are very similar, but for agreement and satisfaction their distinction is the timeline that gives up on existing claims or duties each preceded. The agency contract renounces the previous obligation at the moment the parties reach an agreement. Alternate performance does not drain existing duties until performance is performed.

The last requirement for legitimate consensus and satisfaction to exist is that there is a "new, valuable, and legal consideration". The point to consider is promise of performance or return. Therefore, in order to promise to give, promise, or not do, some prize must be given. In the context of agreements and satisfaction, the court claims that "consideration is a solution to a disputed claim".

Comparative study

The principle of consensus and satisfaction is said to be similar to other forms of conflict resolution and is often said to be confused in harmony with compromise and settlement and several arbitration forms,

Agreement and satisfaction can be distinguished from other forms of resolving legal disputes. Payment or fulfillment means that the original duty has been fulfilled.

Release is the formal abandonment of the right to fulfill the original duty, not necessarily a compromise like agreement or satisfaction.

Arbitration is the resolution of a dispute by an outside person who voluntarily accepted a ruling decision by the parties.

Composition with creditors is very similar to Accord, but there are elements that are not needed for agreement and satisfaction. It can only be used for conflict between the obligor and a certain number of creditors, and can solve and satisfy any disputes arising from contracts or torts.

While there is often a distinction between agreement, satisfaction, compromise and settlement, these two terms are often used interchangeably.

Prediction is not a complete outcome, its promise is satisfactory and is a kind of agreement accepted as a binding resolving conflict.

Conclusion

The principle of agreement and satisfaction means that after a breach of contract the parties may conclude a resultant contract that can accept some consideration other than legal remedy.

This principle is explained as a way to cancel the contract, not only to cancel the contract itself but only to make the obligations arising from that contract unenforceable. The principles of consensus and satisfaction are considered defense of legal action.

According to contractual Chitty,

It is an adequate defense against litigation against a breach of the contract that the cause of the case is disposed of by agreement and satisfaction, that is, by agreement after the violation. Relief is not unjustly accepted by the parties.

Agreements and satisfactions to ensure liberation from such obligations are based on the existence of contracts rather than treating them as not actually present. Harmonization of agreement and satisfaction results in good defense if behavior is brought on account of default. Because the defense is not the end of the contract, the allegation of the case is not entitled to normal relief of the violation, as the violation is satisfied with agreement and satisfaction.

Through agreement and satisfaction, the lessee can agree to accept the lesser amount by fully satisfying all the claims. However, if the amount paid by the obligor was still small, the debt was not terminated. In such a case, even though the creditor accepted the above amount, the agreement does not hold.