Question:

Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or not capable of being made certain, are void.

Facts: A horse was bought for a certain price coupled with a promise to give Rs. 500 more if the horse is proved lucky.

Show Hint

Ask whether a court could ever prove that a horse turned out "lucky". If the trigger for the extra money cannot be measured by any standard, the promise has no certain meaning.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • This is a valid agreement.
  • This agreement is void for uncertainty because it is very difficult to determine what luck, bad or good, the horse has brought to the buyer.
  • The agreement is partially valid and partially void.
  • None of the above.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The principle has one test only: is the meaning of the agreement certain, or at least capable of being made certain?
The facts give two promises. One is to pay a fixed price for the horse. The other is to pay Rs. 500 extra if the horse is "proved lucky".
We have to apply the certainty test to the second promise.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
An agreement is certain when a court can read it and say exactly what each side must do, and when that duty falls due.
If the event that triggers a payment cannot be measured by any fixed standard, nobody can ever say whether the money is owed. Such a promise has no ascertainable meaning, so the agreement is void.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The extra Rs. 500 depends on the horse being "lucky".
Luck has no legal or commercial meaning. It is not a quality of the horse that can be inspected, measured, weighed or tested.
One buyer may call a horse lucky because it won a race. Another may call the same horse unlucky because it fell ill a month later. There is no yardstick that settles the dispute.
Because the trigger cannot be pinned down, the promise cannot be made certain by any evidence outside the contract either. That is exactly the situation the principle calls void.
This matches the old decision in Guthing v Lynn, where a horse was bought at a price with an extra sum promised if the horse proved lucky, and the added term was held too loose and vague to be enforced.
So the agreement fails the certainty test and is void.

Step 4: Why the other options fail:
Option (A) calls it a valid agreement. That ignores the principle, because the meaning of "lucky" is neither certain nor capable of being made certain.
Option (C) says it is partly valid and partly void. The principle offers no such split. It says the agreement is void, not that the good half survives, so this option adds a rule that was never given.
Option (D) is ruled out because option (B) already states the correct result with the correct reason.

Step 5: Final Answer:
The promise turns on an event that cannot be measured, so the agreement is void for uncertainty.
\[ \boxed{\text{Option (B)}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Contract Law Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions