Question

Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in a 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.

• A. The contract is enforceable against the doctor.
• B. The contract is enforceable against the patient.
• C. The contract is not enforceable.
• D. The contract is not enforceable against the patient.

Hint:

In contracts where one party has significant control over the other’s decisions, the enforceability of the contract depends on the dominant party’s discretion.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The principle mentioned here indicates that when one party holds the power to dominate the decision-making of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the discretion of the dominant party. In this case, the patient agreed to pay a large sum of money (Rs. 10,00,000/-) for the doctor's services. Since the doctor was in the dominant position to make the treatment decision, the contract remains enforceable against the patient. The patient’s refusal to pay the balance amount does not invalidate the contract because the doctor had the authority to make the decision.
Thus, the correct answer is (B). Option (A) is incorrect because it implies the enforceability against the doctor, which contradicts the power dynamics in this situation. Option (C) is incorrect because the contract is enforceable. Option (D) is incorrect because, again, the contract remains valid and enforceable against the patient.

Answer 2

This question hinges on identifying who held the dominant position in the transaction, since the principle ties enforceability to that party's choice, not to fairness or amount. Let's assess each option.

1. The contract is enforceable against the doctor: This would only follow if the patient were the dominant party, but nothing in the facts suggests the patient had any power over the doctor's decisions. The doctor, holding professional and situational authority over a patient seeking treatment, was the party in the position to dominate.
2. The contract is enforceable against the patient: As the treating professional in a position of authority over a person seeking urgent medical care, the doctor was the dominant party. The principle makes such a contract enforceable only at the option of the dominant party, meaning the doctor can choose to enforce the promise to pay against the patient, and has in fact demanded the balance. The patient's later refusal doesn't defeat a contract the dominant party elects to enforce.
3. The contract is not enforceable: This ignores that the principle preserves an enforcement route through the dominant party's option; it does not extinguish the contract altogether.
4. The contract is not enforceable against the patient: This is the opposite of what the principle produces here. Because the doctor was dominant, the doctor's choice to enforce operates against the patient, the very outcome this option denies.

Since the doctor occupied the dominant position in this doctor-patient relationship, the doctor's decision to demand the remaining payment makes the contract enforceable against the patient.

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

Answer 3

The principle rests on two elements: identifying who held the dominant position in the relationship, and then recognising that enforceability runs at that dominant party's choice. Testing the options against these two elements.

1. The contract is enforceable against the doctor: Element one asks who dominated the decision-making. A patient seeking urgent treatment for fever is not in a position to dictate or dominate a doctor's professional decisions, so the doctor, not the patient, satisfies element one, which rules out treating the doctor as the bound party.
2. The contract is enforceable against the patient: The doctor, as the treating professional attending to a patient in need of care, held the dominant position, satisfying element one. Element two then gives the doctor, as the dominant party, the choice to enforce the promise of payment, and the doctor exercised exactly that choice by demanding the balance. Both elements line up to bind the patient.
3. The contract is not enforceable: This option effectively removes element two from the picture, treating the contract as dead regardless of anyone's choice. The principle instead keeps the contract alive specifically through the dominant party's option, so declaring it void outright skips a step the rule provides for.
4. The contract is not enforceable against the patient: This directly contradicts the outcome of applying element two, once the dominant party, the doctor, chooses to enforce, the natural consequence is that the agreement binds the other side, the patient, which this option denies.

Identifying the doctor as the dominant party and tracing through the enforcement option the principle gives him leads to the contract binding the patient.

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