CASE ANALYSIS : DAMBARUDHAR V STATE OF ORISSA
-SANMATI RAONKA, Symbiosis Law School, PUNE

Contract is an agreement in which two parties wilfully enters into which binds them in a civil obligation. Therefore in order to enter into a contract the parties must agree to the same fact in the same manner. Their decision should not be waivered by any factors like fraud, coercion, misinterpretation or mistake. If any of the previously mentioned factors affect the decision of the parties entering into a contract then consent is said to be not given freely. Free Consent is very important to our case as there is a scope of misrepresentation that is one of the parties did not have or was mistaken to the material fact of the contract. Mulla and Pollock commenting on this section have observed that the expression “the same thing” appearing in this section means the whole content of the agreement, whether it consists, wholly or in part, of delivery of material objects, or payment, or executed acts or promises.

According to section 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India, and not hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.[1]
According to sec 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,” An agreement enforceable by law is a contract”. Therefore, though every contract is an agreement, every agreement is not a contract. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 lays down the essentials of the valid agreement. One of the essential elements is that there should be free consent of parties to the