Dear Reader,
Your situation represents a contract dispute, and there are a couple of important points that can be noted on this basis.
The June 9, 2017 agreement would be valid generally if the claimant had entered into the same voluntarily and the terms put across were clear and capable of being enforced under the Indian Contract Act, of 1872. Since the claimant signed the said agreement on June 20, even though it is claimed to have been signed in the defendant's capacity cannot be an issue, unless there is a want of authority or capacity on the part of the defendant. In the case of contract law, free consent on both sides is a significant issue (Section 10, Indian Contract Act).
Referring to the limitation, the claimant would file a suit for specific performance under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, within three years from the date of the breach. As the agreement has come to an end on July 8, 2017, and the claimant files the suit for specific performance now, it may even fall within the prescripttion period.
The June 20, 2017 counteroffer is a new offer. Under the law, a withdrawal can take place even before acceptance. In this case, the June 20 signing of the agreement dated June 9, 2017, by the claimant would constitute acceptance and performance of the prior agreement. However, the refusal to sign the counteroffer does not defeat the June 9 agreement. In Balfour v. Balfour (1919), cases courts have always underscored the meaning of intention to create legal relations under agreements. To be able to cite this as an argument showing that the original June 9 agreement stands.
Hope this helps, if you have any questions, reach out to me at sankalpt44@gmail.com
