Effect of fraud in indian contract act

iF AGGRIEVED -PARTY WITH DUE DILIGENCE COULD HAVE DISCOVERED FRAUD BUT  DIDNOT, LATER ON HE CAN'T AVOID THE FRAUDULENT CONTRACT BEING VOID.

iF YOU APPRECIATE THIS ANSWER PLEASE CONVEY FORUM THANKS BY CLICKING THANKS.

Thank you for the reply. I wish to seek further clarification though.

Text books on Indian Contract Act do make a mention that in case of innocent misrepresentation, one party can claim that the injured party had the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence, and therefore the contract remains valid.

However, that is not the case with fraud. In this case, the party cannot claim that the injured party had the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence. Hence the contract remains voidable because of the existence of fraud. It is also mentioned that where there is active concealment, the contract is voidable even though the aggrieved party had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.

However, exception to Sec 19 states that contract is not necessarily voidable if the aggrieved party could discover the truth by ordinary diligence. Hence my doubt.

According to the exception stipulated under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is not voidable when the consenting party has the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence. However, it definitely depends on the circumstances which ought to be analysed by persons having knowledge in law.  All said and done, one cannot have the cake and eat the cake at the same time. 

For more legal assistance, contact us on solutions@minusdispute.com

According to the exception stipulated under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is not voidable when the consenting party has the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence. However, it definitely depends on the circumstances which ought to be analysed by persons having knowledge in law.  All said and done, one cannot have the cake and eat the cake at the same time. 

For more legal assistance, contact us on solutions@minusdispute.com

Dear Sir,

If the aggrieved party had entered into a contract with someone who shares a fiduciary relationship with the party, then it is presumed by law that there exists a relationship of trust and therefore no fraud should take place. In this case, even though the party had the ordinary diligence to discover the fraud, the contract remains voidable at the option of the aggrieved party.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Zeta

Dear Sir,

If the aggrieved party has entered into a contract with someone who shares a fiduciary relationship with the aggrieved party, the law presumes that there exists a relationship of trust. In such circumstances, even if the aggrieved party had the ordinary diligence to discover the fraud, the contract remains voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. 

Hope this clears your doubt.

Regards,

Zeta