Question:

Principle : Where one of the parties to a contract was in position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate decision of the other party.
Facts : A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lac Only) for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac Only) and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • The contract is enforceable against the doctor.
  • The contract is enforceable against the patient.
  • The contract is not enforceable.
  • The contract is not enforceable.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

The correct option is (B): The contract is enforceable against the patient..
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

The principle says that when one party to a contract was in a position to dominate the other party's decision, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the dominant party, not the dominated party. A doctor demanded Rs. 10,00,000 for treating a patient's fever, a situation where the doctor, holding the power to withhold treatment, was in a position to dominate the patient's decision. Let's check each option against this principle.

  1. The contract is enforceable against the doctor: This would mean the patient, the dominated party, has the power to enforce the contract against the doctor, but the principle gives the option to enforce specifically to the dominant party, which is the doctor here, not the patient, so this option reverses the principle.
  2. The contract is enforceable against the patient: Since the doctor was in the position to dominate the patient's decision during a medical emergency, the principle gives the doctor the option to enforce the contract. The doctor exercised this by demanding the remaining amount, so the contract becomes enforceable against the patient at the doctor's choice.
  3. The contract is not enforceable: The principle does not say the contract becomes void or unenforceable altogether, it specifically makes it enforceable at the option of the dominant party, so declaring it entirely unenforceable goes beyond what the principle states.
  4. The contract is not enforceable: This repeats the same conclusion as the option above, and for the same reason it does not fit, the principle gives an enforcement option to the dominant party rather than cancelling the contract outright.

Because the doctor was the party in a position to dominate the patient's decision, the principle makes the contract enforceable against the patient at the doctor's option, which the doctor exercised by demanding the balance.

Therefore, the correct answer is the contract is enforceable against the patient.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

The principle can be read as a conditional rule: if one party to a contract was in a position to dominate the other's decision-making, then the contract is enforceable only at the option of that dominant party, and specifically against the party who was dominated. Applying this to the facts, a doctor demanded Rs. 10,00,000 for treating a patient's fever, a situation in which the patient, needing treatment, had little room to negotiate, placing the doctor in the dominant position. Let's test each option against this rule.

  1. The contract is enforceable against the doctor: The rule gives the enforcement option to the dominant party, not against them. Since the doctor, not the patient, held the dominant position here, treating the contract as enforceable against the doctor reverses who the rule's option is meant to protect.
  2. The contract is enforceable against the patient: The rule's condition, one party being in a position to dominate the other, is met by the doctor's position over the patient during treatment. The rule's consequence is that the dominant party, the doctor, gets the option to enforce, and the doctor demanding the remaining payment shows that option being exercised against the patient. This matches the rule exactly.
  3. The contract is not enforceable: The rule does not cancel the contract outright, it specifically preserves an enforcement option for the dominant party. Since that option exists and belongs to the doctor, declaring the contract simply unenforceable ignores the consequence the rule actually specifies.
  4. The contract is not enforceable: This repeats the same conclusion as the option above, and fails for the identical reason, the rule attaches an enforcement option to the dominant party rather than voiding the contract for everyone.

Since the doctor held the dominant position over the patient during a medical emergency, the rule places the enforcement option with the doctor, making the contract enforceable against the patient once the doctor chooses to demand payment.

Therefore, the correct answer is the contract is enforceable against the patient.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Contract Law Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions