Indian Contract Act 1872 Section 13: Consent Defined
“13. Consent defined.—Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.”
Explanation to Section 13 Indian Contract Act 1872
Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, defines consent, a fundamental requirement for a valid contract. In simple terms, consent means all parties must agree on the same terms with the same understanding, ensuring no confusion exists. For example, if A agrees to sell a car and B agrees to buy it for a specific price, they consent only if they both understand the deal identically. This principle, known as “consensus ad idem” (meeting of the minds), ensures contracts reflect mutual agreement, preventing disputes from misunderstandings. Section 13 supports Section 10, which requires free consent for enforceable contracts.
Key Points on Section 13 Indian Contract Act 1872
- Consent requires agreement on the same thing in the same sense (consensus ad idem).
- Parties must have a clear, shared understanding of the contract’s terms.
- Misunderstandings or differing interpretations prevent consent, invalidating the agreement.
- Essential for valid contracts under Section 10, alongside free consent (Sections 14-20).
- Applies to all contracts, ensuring clarity and mutual agreement.
Examples of Section 13 Indian Contract Act 1872
- A agrees to sell a bike to B for ₹50,000 in 2025, both clear on terms—Section 13 confirms their consent.
- A offers to sell “rice” meaning basmati, but B thinks it’s brown rice in 2024—Section 13 finds no consent due to differing senses.
- A and B agree to lease a shop for ₹15,000 monthly in 2023, both understanding the deal—Section 13 upholds their consent.
- A sells a phone, but B believes it’s a different model in 2025—Section 13 invalidates the agreement for lack of same-sense consent.
- A contracts to deliver goods to B’s “Delhi store,” but B meant “Mumbai store” in 2024—Section 13 rules no consent due to misunderstanding.
Case Laws Section 13 Indian Contract Act 1872
- Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864): English case, influential in India, held that no contract exists if parties misunderstand the subject matter (e.g., different ships named “Peerless”), aligning with Section 13 (159 ER 375, applied in Indian courts).
- Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh (1998): Supreme Court ruled that consent must involve agreement on the same thing in the same sense, per Section 13, for a valid contract (AIR 1998 SC 1400).