Sections 51 to 54 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 (“Act”) are the relevant provisions that specifically address reciprocal promises. While Sections 51 and 52 explain the different situations in which mutual engagement may be relevant, sections 53 and 54 refer to situations in which a party does not respect its commitment. The purpose of this newsletter is to provide an overview of the concept of mutual promises and to make recommendations that could be useful in drafting and negotiating contracts. 2.3 At the same time, it is once again a common form of mutual promise, in which the parties must fulfil their obligations explicitly or tacitly at the same time. The party that is prepared to honour its promise will be exempted if the other party is not “ready” and “willing” to fulfill its respective obligations. In J.P. Builders vs. Ramadas Rao,5 the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that “preparation” refers to financial capacity and “preparation” refers to the behaviour of the aggrieved party who wishes the benefit, and in general the former is supported by the latter. To understand this, let`s go back to the original illustration.
If “A” were to require sellers, in a tendering process, to source certain raw materials for “B,” all of which, including those from “B,” while “A” was not “ready” and “willing” to make bids in a timely manner, “B” could be freed from the performance of its commitment. The simultaneous fulfillment of the reciprocal promises of “A” and “B” is an integral part of the overall performance of the contract in this figure. b) In the case of bilateral or reciprocal obligations, the debtor who is affected by a case of force majeure is exempt from liability in the event of non-performance, but the other party may terminate the contract. Exceptionally, the maximum “genus numquam perit” applies to general obligations, under which it is considered that the case is not in the process of disappearance and that there is therefore no impossibility of benefit because of the loss of the items on which the debtor relied for the benefit. This is the case, for example, with monetary obligations which, according to the case law, cannot normally be affected by a case of force majeure. 2.2 Conditional: this is the most common type of mutual promise, which is almost always a subject of controversy when there is a conflict that arises because of the violation of a treaty of government. The performance of one party depends on the performance of an obligation by the other party. If such a party does not meet its contractual commitment, the first party will not be able to keep its promise. The assessment of the conditionality or othery of a undertaking depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Let`s take a look at the previous image. If contract “A” and “B” also required “A” to build a road leading to the proposed bridge to allow “B” to bring heavy machinery and equipment to the site, then an “A” violation would impair that obligation, the ability of “B” to perform its part of the contract. Although the contract does not explicitly state that the construction of the road is a precondition for the start of bridge work, the transaction, because of its nature and purpose, would continue to be regarded as a mutual promise, i.e.
that, without the road, work on the bridge would not be able to begin. Even if they are mandatory from the date of their departure, the contracts are violated, as everyone knows. 2.1 So what can be done if the agreement you have reached is violated by the other party? By applying the above decision in your situation, the owner`s contract with the security agency is considered a reciprocal obligation.