EASYAmity University, Noida Law Admissions 2025
Apply700+ Campus placements at top national and global law firms, corporates, and judiciaries
Vis Major for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ
Edited By admin | Updated on Sep 25, 2023 25:26 PM | #CLAT
Quick Facts
-
10 Questions around this concept.
Solve by difficulty
Read the given passage and answer the following questions
Contracts often contain a force majeure clause that is negotiated between parties and specifies the events that qualify as force majeure events such as acts of God, wars, terrorism, riots, labor strikes, embargos, and acts of government, epidemics, pandemics, plagues, quarantines, and boycotts.
If the event that is alleged to have prevented performance under the contract, such as an epidemic, is specifically mentioned in the force majeure clause and the event occurs, then the affected parties may be relieved from performance.
Even if such an event is not specifically mentioned in the force majeure clause, many force majeure clauses contain a catch-all phrase that is in addition to the specifically mentioned events. A catch-all phrase would have similar language to "including, but not limited to" or "any cause/ event outside the reasonable control of the parties". Although such catch-all language is construed ejusdem generis, depending on the width of the language of the catch-all phrase, it could be argued that an epidemic/ pandemic like Covid-19 falls within the ambit of the force majeure clause. Even otherwise (i.e. even in the absence of such catch-all language), if 'Vis Major'/ 'Act of God' has been specifically included as a force majeure event, it can be contended that an epidemic like Covid-19 is an 'Act of God'. The Indian Contract Act, of 1872 contains two provisions that are relevant to Force Majeure and Act of God. Section 32 of the Act deals with contingent contracts and inter alia provides that if a contract is based on the happening of a future event and such event becomes impossible, the contract becomes void. Section 56 of the Act deals with the frustration of a contract and provides that a contract becomes void inter alia if it becomes impossible, by reason of an event that a promisor could not prevent after the contract is made.
In a line of decisions starting from Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur to Energy Watchdog v. CERC, the Supreme Court has held that when a force majeure event is relatable to a clause (express or implied) in a contract, it is governed by Section 32 of the Act whereas if a force majeure event occurs dehors the contract, Section 56 of the Act applies.
Question:
All acts of God are force majeure but all force majeure are not acts of God. The following statement is
Read the given passage and answer the following questions
Contracts often contain a force majeure clause that is negotiated between parties and specifies the events that qualify as force majeure events such as acts of God, wars, terrorism, riots, labor strikes, embargos, and acts of government, epidemics, pandemics, plagues, quarantines, and boycotts.
If the event that is alleged to have prevented performance under the contract, such as an epidemic, is specifically mentioned in the force majeure clause and the event occurs, then the affected parties may be relieved from performance.
Even if such an event is not specifically mentioned in the force majeure clause, many force majeure clauses contain a catch-all phrase that is in addition to the specifically mentioned events. A catch-all phrase would have similar language to "including, but not limited to" or "any cause/ event outside the reasonable control of the parties". Although such catch-all language is construed ejusdem generis, depending on the width of the language of the catch-all phrase, it could be argued that an epidemic/ pandemic like Covid-19 falls within the ambit of the force majeure clause. Even otherwise (i.e. even in the absence of such catch-all language), if 'Vis Major'/ 'Act of God' has been specifically included as a force majeure event, it can be contended that an epidemic like Covid-19 is an 'Act of God'. The Indian Contract Act, of 1872 contains two provisions that are relevant to Force Majeure and Act of God. Section 32 of the Act deals with contingent contracts and inter alia provides that if a contract is based on the happening of a future event and such event becomes impossible, the contract becomes void. Section 56 of the Act deals with the frustration of a contract and provides that a contract becomes void inter alia if it becomes impossible, by reason of an event that a promisor could not prevent after the contract is made.
In a line of decisions starting from Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur to Energy Watchdog v. CERC, the Supreme Court has held that when a force majeure event is relatable to a clause (express or implied) in a contract, it is governed by Section 32 of the Act whereas if a force majeure event occurs dehors the contract, Section 56 of the Act applies.
Question:
After reading the passage carefully, what do you understand by the catch-all phrase?
Read the given passage and answer the following questions
Contracts often contain a force majeure clause that is negotiated between parties and specifies the events that qualify as force majeure events such as acts of God, wars, terrorism, riots, labor strikes, embargos, and acts of government, epidemics, pandemics, plagues, quarantines, and boycotts.
If the event that is alleged to have prevented performance under the contract, such as an epidemic, is specifically mentioned in the force majeure clause and the event occurs, then the affected parties may be relieved from performance.
Even if such an event is not specifically mentioned in the force majeure clause, many force majeure clauses contain a catch-all phrase that is in addition to the specifically mentioned events. A catch-all phrase would have similar language to "including, but not limited to" or "any cause/ event outside the reasonable control of the parties". Although such catch-all language is construed ejusdem generis, depending on the width of the language of the catch-all phrase, it could be argued that an epidemic/ pandemic like Covid-19 falls within the ambit of the force majeure clause. Even otherwise (i.e. even in the absence of such catch-all language), if 'Vis Major'/ 'Act of God' has been specifically included as a force majeure event, it can be contended that an epidemic like Covid-19 is an 'Act of God'. The Indian Contract Act, of 1872 contains two provisions that are relevant to Force Majeure and Act of God. Section 32 of the Act deals with contingent contracts and inter alia provides that if a contract is based on the happening of a future event and such event becomes impossible, the contract becomes void. Section 56 of the Act deals with the frustration of a contract and provides that a contract becomes void inter alia if it becomes impossible, by reason of an event that a promisor could not prevent after the contract is made.
In a line of decisions starting from Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur to Energy Watchdog v. CERC, the Supreme Court has held that when a force majeure event is relatable to a clause (express or implied) in a contract, it is governed by Section 32 of the Act whereas if a force majeure event occurs dehors the contract, Section 56 of the Act applies.
Question:
Karman hired musicians for his marriage party but the banquet hall where the function was supposed to happen caught fire one day before the marriage. Whether in such a situation contract is deemed to be discharged?
CLAT 2025: College Predictor | Cut Off & Past Trends | Marks vs Rank
CLAT 2025: First Merit List Out - Download PDF
CLAT 2026: Best Books for CLAT Preparation | 10 Free Mock Tests | Syllabus
In 2019, Avi entered into an agreement with B to provide him with delivery of certain goods by April 2020. during 2020, there was an outbreak of COVID-19, due to the pandemic, Avi was not able to provide the delivery of goods because of several restrictions that were imposed during the pandemic. What defence is avaialble to Avi in this case of non-performance ?
In which of the following cases, Vis major was discussed ?
If A stole B's jewellery in a situation where there was flood in their area. Can A claim the defence of vis major ?
Concepts Covered - 1
Vis Major
Introduction
- Vis Major, often referred to as an "act of God," is a legal concept that recognizes events or circumstances that are extraordinary, unforeseeable, and beyond human control.
- These events are so exceptional that they could not have been reasonably anticipated or prevented. Vis Major serves as an important defense in various legal situations, particularly in contract law and liability claims.
1. Defining Vis Major:
- Vis Major, derived from Latin, translates to "superior force." It encompasses events or circumstances that are entirely beyond human control and could not have reasonably been foreseen or prevented.
- It operates as a legal principle that acknowledges that individuals or entities should not be held liable for harm, damage, or non-performance of obligations when these outcomes result from extraordinary and unforeseeable events.
2. Key Principles of Vis Major:
- Unforeseeable Events: Vis Major applies when the event or circumstance leading to harm or non-performance was unforeseeable and beyond the reasonable anticipation of the affected party.
- Lack of Human Agency: The event must result from factors or forces that are entirely beyond human control. It should not be attributable to human actions, negligence, or foreseeable events.
3. Understanding with Examples:
- Natural Disasters: Property damage caused during a natural disaster like an earthquake, flood, or wildfire is often considered a classic example of Vis Major. These events are typically beyond human control, and it is unreasonable to anticipate or prevent them.
- Global Pandemic: The outbreak of a highly contagious and deadly disease, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, is another instance of Vis Major. The pandemic had profound and unforeseeable consequences, affecting contracts, businesses, and various obligations.
4. Case Law Illustrating Vis Major: Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954)
- Background
- Satyabrata Ghose, the plaintiff, had entered into a contract with Mugneeram Bangur & Co., the defendant, to purchase certain goods.
- The contract included a clause specifying that delivery was to be made within a stipulated time frame.
- Legal Issue
- The primary legal issue in this case was whether the defendant, Mugneeram Bangur & Co., could be held liable for non-performance of the contract due to the outbreak of the Second World War.
- Court's Decision and Reasoning
- The court, in its judgment, ruled in favor of the defendant, Mugneeram Bangur & Co.
- The key reasoning behind this decision was that the outbreak of the Second World War constituted a Vis Major event.
- The court recognized that the war was an extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstance, beyond the control of both parties to the contract.
- It was noted that the war had disrupted normal trade and transportation, making it impossible for the defendant to deliver the goods within the stipulated time frame.
- Therefore, the court held that the defendant could not be held liable for non-performance of the contract due to the war, which was a classic example of Vis Major.
- Significance
- The Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. case is significant as it reaffirms the Vis Major defense in contract law.
- It emphasizes that parties to a contract should not be held responsible for non-performance when it is caused by events that are extraordinary, unforeseeable, and beyond human control.
- Key Takeaways
- This case illustrates the practical application of the Vis Major concept in contract law, particularly in situations where non-performance is due to events beyond human control.
- It underscores the importance of distinguishing between circumstances where liability arises from negligence or wrongful action and those where non-performance results from extraordinary and unforeseeable events.
5. Practical Application:
- In practice, Vis Major can be invoked as a defense in various legal contexts, including contract disputes and liability claims. It serves to shield individuals or entities from liability when extraordinary, unforeseeable events disrupt their ability to fulfill obligations or lead to harm.
- Vis Major safeguards against unjustly holding individuals or entities accountable for events that were entirely beyond their control and reasonable anticipation.
"Stay in the loop. Receive exam news, study resources, and expert advice!"
Get Answer to all your questions
CLAT Articles
May 31, 2025
Back to top