Question

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B‘s girl friend.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

• A. B can enforce the agreement.
• B. B cannot enforce the agreement.
• C. A can enforce the agreement.
• D. Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A): B can enforce the agreement..

Answer 2

The principle says that when consent to an agreement is not free, such as consent obtained under threat, the agreement can still be enforced, but only if the party whose consent was not free chooses to enforce it. Here, A obtained B's consent by threatening B's girlfriend at gunpoint, so B's consent was clearly not free. Let's check each option against this principle.

1. B can enforce the agreement: Since B is the party whose consent was not free (it was obtained through the threat to his girlfriend), the principle gives the choice of enforcement to B alone. B may choose to hold A to the agreement if he wants to, so B enforcing it is exactly what the principle allows.
2. B cannot enforce the agreement: This is the opposite of what the principle says, the principle specifically gives the option to enforce to the party whose consent was not free, which is B here, not the other way around.
3. A can enforce the agreement: A is the one who used the threat to obtain B's consent, so A's own consent was never in question, meaning the principle's option to enforce does not belong to A at all.
4. Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement: The principle does not void the agreement entirely, it makes it enforceable at the choice of the party whose consent was not free, so it is wrong to say neither party has any right to enforce it.

Because B's consent was obtained under threat, the principle places the choice to enforce the agreement in B's hands alone.

Therefore, the correct answer is B can enforce the agreement.

Answer 3

The principle sets out a conditional rule: if a party's consent to an agreement was not free, then the agreement is enforceable only at the option of that specific party, and the option belongs to no one else. The facts show A obtained B's consent by threatening B's girlfriend at gunpoint, which means it is B's consent, not A's, that was not free. Let's test each option against this rule.

1. B can enforce the agreement: The rule's condition, that B's consent was not free, is squarely met by the facts, since B agreed only under threat to his girlfriend. The rule's consequence attaches the enforcement option to exactly the party whose consent was not free, which is B, so this option follows directly.
2. B cannot enforce the agreement: This directly contradicts the rule's consequence, since the rule specifically grants the option to enforce to the party whose consent was compromised, not withholds it from that party. Given that B is the coerced party, denying B the option runs opposite to the rule.
3. A can enforce the agreement: The rule's option belongs to the party whose consent was not free. A's own consent was never in question here, A was the one applying the threat, so A falls outside the class of party the rule protects, and the rule gives A no enforcement option at all.
4. Neither A nor B can enforce the agreement: The rule does not void the agreement or leave it unenforceable by everyone, it specifically preserves an enforcement option for one party, the one whose consent was not free. Since that option exists and belongs to B, saying neither party can enforce it contradicts the rule's own wording.

Because B is the party whose consent was obtained through threat, the rule places the enforcement option in B's hands alone, and no other outcome fits its wording.

Therefore, the correct answer is B can enforce the agreement.