Question

Which of the following is not correct about the nature of contingent contract?

• A. A contract contingent upon the happening of an event can be enforced after that event occurs.
• B. A contract contingent upon the happening of an event can be enforced even before that event occurs.
• C. If the event becomes impossible, the contract becomes void.
• D. The parties are under no obligation till the happening of that event unless there is a term requiring the parties to make effort to make that event happen.
• A. The contract can be enforced when the cruise sinks.
• B. Sinking of cruise has no relevance for validity of contract.
• C. The contract cannot be enforced when the cruise sinks.
• D. The condition is impossible.
• A. No contract comes into existence until the contingency occurs.
• B. One party cannot assume an immediate unilateral obligation subject to a condition.
• C. The parties cannot enter into an immediately binding contract; and either the operation of the contract is made to depend upon the happening of the specified event.
• D. All contingent contracts are void.
• A. The contract becomes void if the ship is burnt within the year.
• B. The contract depends upon returning or non-returning of the ship.
• C. The contract may be enforced if the ship returns within the year.
• D. The contract cannot be enforced if the ship returns within the year.
• A. The agreement is valid.
• B. The enforceability of agreement does not depend on the existence of ‘B’.
• C. The agreement is void.
• D. The event is possible in its nature.
• A. Wagering agreements are void and contingent contracts are valid.
• B. Wagering agreements are valid and contingent contracts are void.
• C. Wagering agreements and contingent contracts are valid.
• D. Wagering agreements and contingent contracts are void.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding contingent contracts.
Under Sections 31–36 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contingent contract depends on the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of a future uncertain event. It can only be enforced after the event has happened (if the condition is based on occurrence) or when it becomes certain that the event will not happen (if based on non-occurrence).
Step 2: Why Option B is incorrect.
A contingent contract cannot be enforced before the event occurs. Doing so would defeat the essence of contingency — the contract’s enforceability hinges on the event actually happening (or not happening).
Step 3: Verification of other options.
(A) Correct — matches Section 32.
(C) Correct — impossibility of the event makes the contract void (Section 32).
(D) Correct — unless expressly agreed, no obligation arises before the event.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 2

This question asks which statement about contingent contracts, as governed by Sections 31 to 36 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is NOT correct.

1. Can be enforced after the event occurs: This is an accurate statement of the law. A contingent contract based on the happening of an uncertain future event becomes enforceable once that event actually happens, consistent with Section 32.
2. Can be enforced even before the event occurs: This statement is not correct. The defining feature of a contingent contract is that enforceability is postponed until the contingency is resolved, so a party cannot demand performance while the triggering event remains pending. Allowing enforcement before the event happens would erase the very distinction between an absolute and a contingent contract.
3. If the event becomes impossible, the contract becomes void: This correctly reflects Section 32, which provides that a contract contingent on an uncertain future event becomes void if that event becomes impossible.
4. No obligation until the event happens, unless there is a term requiring effort to bring it about: This is also an accurate description of contingent contract law, since parties generally owe no performance obligation until the contingency occurs, except where the contract itself imposes a duty to try to make the event happen.

Three of the four statements correctly describe how contingent contracts operate, while the claim that such a contract can be enforced even before the event occurs contradicts the basic postponement principle underlying Sections 31 to 36.

So, the correct answer is a contract contingent upon the happening of an event can be enforced even before that event occurs.

Answer 3

Step 1: Identifying the condition.
The contingency is “cruise does not return.” Sinking of the cruise makes it certain that it will not return.
Step 2: Application of law.
As per Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, when the contingent event happens (or its non-happening becomes certain), the contract becomes enforceable. Here, the non-return is certain, hence enforceable.
Step 3: Elimination.
(B) Incorrect — the event is central to enforceability.
(C) Incorrect — contract is enforceable once condition is fulfilled.
(D) Incorrect — condition is not impossible; it has occurred.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 4

The facts describe A promising to pay B a sum of money if a certain cruise does not return, and the cruise then sinks, so the question asks what follows from this under contingent contract law.

1. The contract can be enforced when the cruise sinks: The promise was contingent on the cruise's non-return. Once the cruise sinks, it can never return, so the uncertain future event, non-return, has now happened with certainty. Under Section 32, once the contingency materialises, the contract becomes enforceable.
2. Sinking of the cruise has no relevance for validity of the contract: This cannot be right, since the entire enforceability of the promise depends on whether the cruise returns or not. The sinking is the very event that decides the contract's fate, so it is directly relevant.
3. The contract cannot be enforced when the cruise sinks: This is the opposite of the correct legal position. Far from blocking enforcement, the sinking is exactly the occurrence that satisfies the contingency and triggers enforceability.
4. The condition is impossible: An impossible condition is one that cannot occur or cannot be fulfilled, but here the condition, non-return of the cruise, has actually been fulfilled by the sinking. There is nothing impossible about a condition that has already come to pass.

Since the sinking of the cruise makes its non-return a settled fact, the contingency A's promise depended on has occurred, and the contract accordingly becomes enforceable at that point.

So, the correct answer is the contract can be enforced when the cruise sinks.

Answer 5

Step 1: Nature of contingent contracts.
A contingent contract is a valid contract but its operation (performance) is dependent on the happening or non-happening of a specified uncertain future event.
Step 2: Why Option C is correct.
Parties may agree to a binding contract whose execution depends on the event’s occurrence. This is the classic structure of a contingent contract.
Step 3: Eliminating wrong options.
(A) Incorrect — the contract exists from the start, only enforceability is postponed.
(B) Incorrect — contingent contracts can impose obligations, subject to event occurrence.
(D) Incorrect — contingent contracts are valid unless the event becomes impossible.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 6

Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a contingent contract as one to do or not do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen. Testing each option against this definition, together with the settled position that the contract itself is formed at once while only its performance is deferred, shows which statement correctly captures the concept.

1. Option A: This confuses the existence of the contract with its enforceability. A contingent contract is a valid, existing contract the moment the parties reach agreement on its terms; it is only the obligation to perform that is suspended pending the happening of the collateral event. Saying "no contract comes into existence" misdescribes the legal position, since rights and duties already exist from the date of agreement.
2. Option B: This is factually wrong. A party can and often does undertake an immediate obligation whose performance is made conditional on a future event, that is precisely the mechanism Section 31 recognises. The word "unilateral" here misdirects attention: contingent contracts are ordinarily bilateral, with mutual promises, one or both of which are tied to a condition.
3. Option C: This correctly reflects the legal character of a contingent contract. The agreement itself is concluded and binding in the sense that both parties are bound by its terms from inception, but its actual operation, that is, whether performance can be demanded, remains suspended until the specified uncertain event happens or fails to happen. This dual feature, a concluded agreement, deferred operation, is the defining trait tested by the question.
4. Option D: This overstates the position. Sections 32 to 36 of the Act show that contingent contracts are generally valid and enforceable once the contingency is satisfied; they are void only in narrow situations, namely where the contingent event is impossible. A blanket claim that "all" such contracts are void contradicts the statutory scheme.

Measured against Section 31 and the surrounding provisions, only option C accurately states that the parties are bound by an agreement whose operation is postponed to the happening of an uncertain future event, rather than being immediately and unconditionally binding.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C.

Answer 7

Step 1: Identifying the contingency.
The condition for enforceability is the ship returning within a year.
Step 2: Application of law.
As per Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, when a contract is contingent on the happening of a specified event, it becomes enforceable when that event occurs. If the ship returns within the year, the condition is satisfied, hence the contract is enforceable.
Step 3: Elimination.
- (A) Correct — if the ship is burnt, the event becomes impossible and the contract void.
- (B) Correct — enforceability depends on return or non-return.
- (C) Correct — ship returning makes it enforceable.
- (D) Incorrect — contradicts the rule, hence the answer.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 8

The facts describe a classic contingent contract under Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: X's promise to pay Y is conditional on a ship returning within a year. Working through what happens in each of the three possible outcomes, the ship returns, the ship simply does not return, or the ship is destroyed, tests each option against the actual consequence the law attaches to that outcome, and the question asks which statement is NOT correct.

1. Option A: If the ship is burnt during the year, the event on which the promise depends becomes impossible, so the contract becomes void. This statement matches the legal consequence, so it is correct and not the answer.
2. Option B: The very structure of the promise ties its fate to whether the ship comes back or not, that is what makes it contingent in the first place. This statement is an accurate description of the arrangement, so it is correct and not the answer.
3. Option C: Once the ship actually returns within the year, the specified event has happened, and the contract becomes enforceable at that point. This statement is correct and not the answer.
4. Option D: This claims the opposite of the actual rule, that the contract cannot be enforced once the ship returns. That directly contradicts the rule that a contingent contract becomes enforceable precisely when the event it depends on occurs. This statement misstates the law and is therefore the incorrect one.

Since A, B and C all correctly describe how this contingent promise operates, and only D reverses the actual legal outcome by saying the contract cannot be enforced when the triggering event has in fact occurred, D is the statement that is not correct.

Hence, the correct answer is Option D.

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding impossibility.
The agreement’s enforceability depends on ‘Z’ marrying ‘B’. Since ‘B’ was already dead when the contract was made, the event is impossible from the outset.
Step 2: Application of Section 36.
Section 36 of the Indian Contract Act states that a contingent agreement to do something if an impossible event happens is void, regardless of whether the parties knew of the impossibility.
Step 3: Eliminating wrong options.
(A) Incorrect — an impossible condition voids the agreement.
(B) Incorrect — the event is entirely dependent on ‘B’ being alive.
(D) Incorrect — the event is not possible.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 10

A promises to pay Z a sum if Z marries B, but B was already dead when the promise was made. Since a person cannot marry someone who is no longer alive, the event the promise depends on was incapable of happening from the very start. Testing each option against this basic fact shows which one correctly captures the legal effect.

1. Option A: A promise conditioned on an event that can never occur cannot be treated as a valid, operative agreement, because there is no scenario in which the condition could ever be satisfied. Calling it valid ignores that the underlying event is unachievable.
2. Option B: This is incorrect because the entire agreement is built around Z marrying B, B's existence is not incidental but is the very foundation of the condition. Once B is dead, that foundation is gone, so the agreement's fate depends completely on B's non-existence.
3. Option C: Because marrying a deceased person is not something that can ever happen, the contingency is impossible from the moment the agreement is made. An agreement contingent on an impossible event has no way of ever being triggered, and the law accordingly treats it as void from inception.
4. Option D: This misstates the basic fact pattern, with B already dead, Z marrying B is not possible in nature; it is a physical and legal impossibility, not a merely improbable outcome.

Since the condition attached to A's promise could never be fulfilled once B had died, the agreement never had a real chance of taking effect, which is why it is treated as void rather than merely unenforceable or postponed.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C.

Answer 11

Step 1: Understanding wagering agreements.
A wagering agreement is one in which two parties bet on the occurrence or non-occurrence of an uncertain event, with no interest in the event other than winning or losing money. Under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, wagering agreements are void.
Step 2: Understanding contingent contracts.
A contingent contract is a valid contract whose performance depends on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specific uncertain event, and the parties have a genuine interest in the event.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, wagering agreements are void, while contingent contracts are valid if they meet the conditions of Sections 31–36. \[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 12

The clearest way to separate a wagering agreement from a contingent contract is to ask whether the parties have any genuine stake in the transaction beyond winning or losing money on an uncertain event. Applying that distinguishing test to each option shows which one correctly states how the law treats the two.

1. Option A: A wager exists purely to profit from guessing an uncertain outcome, with neither party having any real interest in the event apart from the bet itself; Indian law treats such agreements as void. A contingent contract, by contrast, is tied to a genuine transaction where the event is merely a condition attached to a real obligation, and such contracts are valid once the other conditions of a valid contract are met. This option states both consequences correctly.
2. Option B: This reverses the actual position, wagers are the ones lacking a genuine transactional interest and are void, while contingent contracts arise from real underlying obligations and are valid, not the other way round.
3. Option C: This treats wagering agreements as valid, which overlooks that betting purely on an uncertain event, without any other interest, is specifically declared void.
4. Option D: This wrongly extends the void status of wagers to contingent contracts as well, ignoring that a contingent contract is simply an ordinary contract with a conditional element and is fully enforceable once its condition is satisfied.

Applying the genuine-interest-in-the-transaction test, wagering agreements fail it and are void, while contingent contracts pass it and remain valid, precisely the distinction option A draws.

Hence, the correct answer is Option A.