LLexfolio

CLAT PG Contract and Torts Important Topics for 2027

Free: CLAT PG 2027 online mock test

120 questions, 120 minutes, instant score and explained answers. Free with a Lexfolio account.

Take the free mock test

The CLAT PG contract and torts important topics for 2027 are offer, acceptance and consideration, capacity and free consent, void and voidable agreements, frustration under Section 56, damages under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, specific performance after the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in torts, negligence, strict and absolute liability, vicarious and State liability, and consumer protection under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Law of Contract and Torts are two separate subjects among the 13 in the official CLAT 2027 PG syllabus, and both are tested on 6 December 2026 through passages from judgments and statutes.

PointPosition
Contract coreSections 2, 10, 11, 13 to 23, 25, 27, 56, 62, 70, 73, 74 of the Contract Act
Special contractsIndemnity (124), guarantee (126 to 128), bailment (148), pledge (172), agency (182)
Specific reliefSpecific performance is the rule after 2018 (Section 10); substituted performance (Section 20)
Torts coreNegligence, Rylands v. Fletcher, absolute liability (M.C. Mehta, 1987), vicarious and State liability
Consumer lawConsumer Protection Act, 2019; e-Jagriti; 2-year limitation (Section 69); product liability (Chapter VI)
Recent rulingsBar of Indian Lawyers (2024), Gayatri Balasamy (2025), OTIS Elevator (2026), Shishu Pal (2026)
Lexfolio notesCLAT PG Crash Course Part 2, ₹249

CLAT PG contract and torts important topics: contract law

  • Formation (Sections 2 to 9): proposal, acceptance, communication and revocation. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) on general offers; Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913): no reward without knowledge of the offer; Harvey v. Facey (1893): price quotation is not an offer; Felthouse v. Bindley (1862): silence is not acceptance; Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas (1966): a contract by telephone is made where acceptance is heard.
  • Intention and consideration: Balfour v. Balfour (1919) on domestic agreements; Section 2(d) allows consideration from the promisee “or any other person” (Chinnaya v. Ramayya, 1882); Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880): act at the desire of the promisor; Section 25 exceptions (natural love and affection in a registered writing, past voluntary service, time-barred debt in writing).
  • Capacity (Sections 11 and 12): Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): a minor’s agreement is void ab initio.
  • Free consent (Sections 13 to 22): coercion (15), undue influence (16), fraud (17), misrepresentation (18), voidable at the option of the party (19 and 19A), mistake of fact (20).
  • Void agreements (Sections 23 to 30): unlawful object or consideration (23), restraint of marriage (26), restraint of trade (27; Niranjan Shankar Golikari, 1967, on restraints during employment; Percept D’Mark v. Zaheer Khan, 2006, on post-contract restraints), restraint of legal proceedings (28), uncertainty (29), wagers (30).
  • Performance and discharge: frustration under Section 56 (Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, 1954: “impossible” includes impracticable or useless from the point of view of the object); novation (62).
  • Quasi-contracts: Section 70 (State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal, 1962).
  • Remedies: Section 73 and Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) on remoteness; Section 74 and liquidated damages versus penalty (Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass, 1963; Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, 2015: actual loss must be shown unless it is impossible to prove).

Specific relief: what changed in 2018

  • The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 made specific performance the rule: the court “shall” enforce it subject to Sections 11(2), 14 and 16. Adequacy of damages is no longer a ground to refuse.
  • Section 20 now gives a right to substituted performance at the defaulting party’s cost.
  • Section 20A bars injunctions impeding infrastructure projects; Section 20C requires disposal within 12 months, extendable by six.
  • Section 6: a suit to recover possession of immovable property within six months of dispossession, without proving title.

Practise this in exam conditions. Part 2 of the CLAT PG crash course covers the CLAT PG contract and torts important topics, specific relief, consumer protection, family law, property law and criminal law under the BNS, BNSS and BSA, with explained practice MCQs. CLAT PG Crash Course Part 2, ₹249. Then test it on full papers: CLAT PG 2027 Mock Tests, ₹149.

Law of torts for CLAT PG: principles and cases

  • Injuria and damnum: Ashby v. White (1703) and the Gloucester Grammar School case (1410).
  • Negligence: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): the neighbour principle; Bolam test for professionals; Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005): criminal liability of doctors needs gross negligence; res ipsa loquitur.
  • Strict and absolute liability: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) with its exceptions; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987, oleum gas leak): an enterprise in a hazardous activity has absolute liability with no exceptions.
  • Vicarious and State liability: State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962): State liable for a government driver’s negligence; Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P. (1965): sovereign function defence; Rudul Sah (1983) and Nilabati Behera (1993): compensation as a public law remedy.
  • Motor accidents: Sarla Verma (2009); Pranay Sethi (2017).

Recent tort rulings, 2026

  • Shishu Pal v. Surjeet (June 2026): recognised “loss of domestic care” as a head of compensation for a homemaker’s death and substantially increased the award.
  • OTIS Elevator Co. (India) v. Rashmi Handa (29 July 2026): passenger lifts are common carriers owing a heightened duty of care; a maintenance contractor that ignores known defects is liable.

Consumer law for CLAT PG

  • Key definitions in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: consumer (Section 2(7)), deficiency (2(11)), misleading advertisement (2(28)), product liability (2(34)), unfair trade practice (2(47)).
  • Forums and limits: District Commission up to ₹50 lakh, State above ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore, National above ₹2 crore (by consideration paid, 2021 Rules); complaints filed online on e-Jagriti; limitation of two years under Section 69.
  • Central Consumer Protection Authority (Section 10) handles class action, recalls and misleading advertisements; product liability claims under Chapter VI (Sections 82 to 87).
  • Cases: Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995): medical services are “service”; Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi (May 2024): advocates are not liable under the Act for deficiency in professional service.

On contract, also note Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft (April 2025), where a Constitution Bench held that courts may modify an arbitral award in limited situations under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Question angles on CLAT PG contract and torts important topics

  1. Void or voidable? Distinguish a minor’s agreement, coercion, mistake and unlawful object.
  2. Frustration or breach? Apply Section 56.
  3. Which liability? Strict or absolute, and does any exception apply?
  4. Consumer or not? And which forum?

Try them in the free CLAT PG 2027 online mock test.

Frequently asked questions

What are the CLAT PG contract and torts important topics?

In contract: formation, consideration, capacity, free consent, void agreements, frustration, damages and specific performance after 2018. In torts: negligence, strict and absolute liability, vicarious and State liability, and consumer protection.

Is consumer protection law part of the CLAT PG syllabus?

The official CLAT 2027 PG syllabus lists Torts, and consumer law is usually taught as part of it. Revise the 2019 Act’s definitions, forums and leading cases.

What is the difference between strict and absolute liability?

Strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) allows defences such as act of God and act of a third party. Absolute liability, laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), applies to hazardous industries and allows no exceptions.

Is specific performance discretionary after the 2018 amendment?

No longer in the old sense. After the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, the court “shall” enforce specific performance, subject to the bars in Sections 11(2), 14 and 16, and the plaintiff need not show that damages are inadequate.

Quick quiz

Q1. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), an agreement with a minor was held to be:

  1. voidable at the minor’s option
  2. void ab initio
  3. valid if beneficial
  4. enforceable after majority
Show answer

Answer: B. The Privy Council held a minor’s agreement void under Sections 10 and 11 of the Contract Act.

Q2. The rule of absolute liability for hazardous enterprises in India was laid down in:

  1. Rylands v. Fletcher
  2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
  3. Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P.
  4. Donoghue v. Stevenson
Show answer

Answer: B. The oleum gas leak case held such enterprises absolutely liable, without the Rylands exceptions.

Q3. A consumer complaint must ordinarily be filed within:

  1. one year
  2. two years from the cause of action
  3. three years
  4. 90 days
Show answer

Answer: B. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 sets two years, with power to condone delay for sufficient cause.

Sources

  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Sections 2, 10 to 30, 56, 62, 68 to 74, 124 to 128, 148, 172, 182
  • Specific Relief Act, 1963, as amended in 2018: Sections 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 20A to 20C
  • Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Sections 2, 10, 69, 82 to 87; Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021
  • Carlill (1893); Mohori Bibee (1903); Satyabrata Ghose (1954); Fateh Chand (1963); Kailash Nath Associates (2015)
  • Rylands v. Fletcher (1868); Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932); Vidyawati (1962); Kasturi Lal (1965); M.C. Mehta (1987); Jacob Mathew (2005); V.P. Shantha (1995)
  • Bar of Indian Lawyers (2024); Gayatri Balasamy (2025); Shishu Pal (2026); OTIS Elevator (2026)

Revise the CLAT PG contract and torts important topics with the CLAT PG Crash Course Part 2.

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case. Law as on 29 October 2026.

Useful books for this topic

As an Amazon Associate, Lexfolio earns from qualifying purchases. Prices and availability are shown on Amazon.

Free CLAT PG 2027 sample: exam guide + 2 judgment passages

Get our 16 page CLAT PG starter free: the 2027 pattern, how to read judgment passages fast, the 25 key Supreme Court judgments of 2026, and two practice passages with 10 explained questions. Plus new free guides and law updates by email. Unsubscribe any time.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *