Question:

Principle: When a party to a contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the other party shall not put an end to the contract.
Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.

Show Hint

In contract law, unilateral termination by one party without mutual consent or legal grounds is not valid.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • B cannot put the contract to an end.
  • B can put the contract to an end.
  • C can put his contract with B to an end.
  • A must pay damages to B.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

According to the principle, when one party refuses to perform their obligations under the contract, the other party cannot unilaterally terminate the contract. In this case, A communicated that B’s services would no longer be needed, but B still went ahead and joined C. As per the principle, B should have waited for the contract to naturally conclude or have it terminated by mutual agreement rather than simply abandoning it.
Thus, the correct answer is (A). B cannot put the contract to an end without legal grounds.
Option (B) is incorrect because the refusal of A does not grant B the right to end the contract. Option (C) is incorrect because the issue at hand involves A and B, and C is not a party in the original contract. Option (D) is incorrect because there is no immediate obligation for A to pay damages unless a breach occurs.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

This principle departs from the ordinary common-sense reaction to a repudiation, so it's important to apply exactly what the rule says rather than what one might expect. Let's work through each option.

  1. B cannot put the contract to an end: The principle states that when a party has refused or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the other party shall not put an end to the contract. A's letter on May 11 refusing B's services is precisely such a refusal to perform in entirety. Applying the principle exactly as worded, that refusal by A does not give B the power to terminate the contract himself; the rule expressly withholds that power from B.
  2. B can put the contract to an end: This is the opposite of what the principle says. Even though A's May 11 letter looks like a clear repudiation that might ordinarily justify termination, this specific principle bars the other party, B, from treating the refusal as grounds to end the contract.
  3. C can put his contract with B to an end: The principle in the facts concerns the contract between A and B; C's separate arrangement with B is a different contract altogether, and nothing in the given principle speaks to C's rights over that separate engagement.
  4. A must pay damages to B: The principle as stated addresses only whether the contract can be brought to an end by the other party, it says nothing about a damages obligation, so this option introduces a remedy the principle doesn't establish.

Since the principle specifically denies the non-repudiating party the power to end the contract upon the other's refusal to perform in entirety, B does not get to treat A's May 11 letter as terminating the engagement.

Therefore, the correct answer is B cannot put the contract to an end.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

This principle has an unusual structure worth isolating before applying it: it identifies a party who has refused to perform in entirety, and then it bars the other party, not the refusing one, from ending the contract. Checking the facts against exactly that two-step structure.

  1. B cannot put the contract to an end: A's May 11 letter, telling B his services would not be needed, is a refusal to perform in entirety, satisfying the first step. The second step of the principle then bars the other party, B, from ending the contract in response to that refusal, which is precisely the outcome this option states.
  2. B can put the contract to an end: This assumes the second step runs the opposite way, granting the non-refusing party a right to terminate. But the principle's second step withholds that power from the other party rather than granting it, so this option inverts what the rule actually does.
  3. C can put his contract with B to an end: The two-step structure here is built around the A-B contract specifically, A's refusal and B's resulting position. C's separate engagement with B is a different contract altogether, one the given principle doesn't address at all.
  4. A must pay damages to B: The principle's two steps concern only whether the contract can be ended, they say nothing about a damages remedy, so this option introduces a consequence the structure doesn't provide for.

Running A's May 11 letter through the principle's two-step structure, a refusal to perform in entirety followed by a bar on the other party ending the contract, lands on B being unable to terminate.

Therefore, the correct answer is B cannot put the contract to an end.

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