Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026 | QB Set 1

Force Majeure is a French word which translates to ‘superior strength/force’ and in legal aspects means unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a promise or obligation. The principle included act of God, natural calamity and unforeseeable and uncontrollable events that prevent an individual from performing the promised part of the contract.

In civil law countries, the concept of force majeure has to be introduced by explicitly and unambiguously written in the contract. But in India “Force Majeure” is indirectly governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 through Frustration of Contracts and Contingent Contract, thus is implied. Most business surely upon the sanctity of contracts, making it crucial to the stability of the economy as a whole. If the contract fails to include a force majeure clause, the parties have the recourse of provisions of ICA.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 corona virus has not only slowed the economy but has halted it as the country observes 21 days of lockdown and imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974(CrPC) in various parts of the country. Section 144 of CrPC imposes several stringent restrictions on commercial activity in the area.

On 19th February, 2020, the Government of India clarified via official memorandum to all Central Government Ministries/Departments that the COVID-19 outbreak will be covered Force Majeure Clauses (FM clauses). It also clarified that the global spread of virus should be considered as a case of natural calamity and the FM clauses may be invoked if appropriate and with due procedure.

An FM clause in the contract frees both parties from contractual liability or obligation when prevented by such event from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. An FM clause does not excuse a party’s non-performance entirely, but only suspends it for the duration of the FM. There may be a FM situation affecting the purchase organisation only. In such a situation, the purchase organisation is to communicate with the supplier along similar lines as above for further necessary action. If the performance is delayed by any reason of FM for a period exceeding 90 (Ninety) days, either party may at its option terminate the contract without any financial repercussion on either side.

Source: Extracted (with edits and revisions) An excerpt from article titled “COVID-19: A Force Majeure in India?” authored by ‘Abha Kashyap’

Q.1. Raj was required to enter into a contract in India (common law country) as per which Raj has to transport goods from Mumbai to Delhi for Simran. There was no mention of force majeure clause in the contract. Before the contract can be performed, nationwide lockdown was announced by the government due to COVID-19. As a result, Simran sues her so Raj for compensation and has thus filed a civil suit. In the hearing, Raj pleads defence of Force Majeure? Whether he is defended and discharged his liability?

(a) Defence taken by Raj will be dismissed as there was no express mention of Force Majeure clause in the contract.
(b) Suit will be dismissed in toto as courts entertain only urgent cases in lockdown.
(c) Defence taken by Raj would dissolve his liability as Force Majeure is indirectly covered by the provisions of ICA.
(d) It is not a case of Force Majeure, Lockdown is man-made and can be lifted by man only without any intervention of superior force.

Q.2. Ralph and Raquel entered into a contract in France (civil law country) as per which Ralph has to transport goods from Paris to Bordeaux for Raquel. There was no mention of force majeure clause in the contract. Before the contract can be performed, nationwide lockdown was announced by the government due to COVID-19. As a result, Raquel wants to sue Ralph for compensation and thus filed a civil suit. In the hearing, Ralph pleads defence of Force Majeure? Whether his defence would discharge his liability?

(a) Ralph would not succeed as there is requirement of express and unambiguous mention of FM clause in the contract.
(b) Ralph would succeed as in civil law countries it needs not to be expressly included in the contract.
(c) Ralph’s defence would depend upon the laws of the country and would succeed only if statutes provides for such defence.
(d) It is not a case of Force Majeure, Lockdown is man-made and can be lifted by man only without any intervention of superior force.

Q.3. Rajeev and Aman entered into a contract as per which Aman have to transport goods for business of Rajeev. Before the time the goods can be delivered, FM comes into effect on 1st February, 2020 due to some unforeseen circumstances. Their liability got suspended indefinitely. On 25th April 2020, Aman terminated the contract. On 27th May, Rajeev sued Aman for seeking compensation for loss suffered due to non-fulfilment of contract. Will Aman be made liable for loss suffered by Rajeev?

(a) Aman would be liable as he has unilaterally terminated the contract and has caused losses to Rajeev.
(b) Aman would be liable as he has not performed his part of the contract. Thus, either he should perform his part or pay compensation.
(c) Aman wouldn’t be liable as he can terminate the contract without any financial repercussion on either side
(d) Both (a) and (b).

Q.4. Sachin and Ravi entered into a contract as per which Ravi has to work exclusively for Sachin. After few months, FM was invoked. While FM was in action, Ravi entered into a contract with Sunny for construction of building. Sachin sued Ravi for breach of contract. Will he succeed?

(a) His action will fail as once FM is invoked, there exists no liability on parties and thus parties are free of any liability arising out of contract.
(b) His action will succeed as FM has not dissolved the liability of parties, but have merely suspended it.
(c) His chances of success will depend upon facts of the case.
(d) None of the above.

Q.5. What could be the main reason for providing protection for contractual liabilities while FM is in action?

(a) Protection is granted as there are some unforeseen circumstances rendering the performance of contract impossible.
(b) Protection is granted by an equitable principle that no liability should exist for performance of impossible things.
(c) Protection is granted so that in such unforeseen circumstances, parties should give attention to other important things in life.
(d) Both (a) and (b).

Q.6. What could have been the probable effect if FM was not invoked by orders of government?

(a) People would have not stopped their businesses and thus defying lockdown orders.
(b) There would have been unnecessary litigation as people would have been running to courts to claim compensation from other party to the contract.
(c) Situation would have been no different
(d) Both (a) and (b).

Answers

1. Ans: (c)

Sol: The correct Option is (c) – Defence taken by Raj would dissolve his liability as Force Majeure is indirectly covered by the provisions of ICA. Even if force majeure is not expressly mentioned in the contract, still party can take recourse by provisions of ICA under frustration of contract.
Option (a) is not appropriate answer as although there is need of express mention yet it is indirectly covered by ICA.
Option (b) and (d) are totally irrelevant in this situation.

2. Ans: (b)

Sol: The correct Option is (b) – Ralph would succeed as in civil law countries it needs not to be expressly included in the contract. As mentioned above, France is a civil law country, and in civil law countries there is no need to expressly mention FM clause in the contract. Thus, even in absence of such clause FM would automatically discharge his liability.
Above explanation makes option (a) incorrect. Option (c) is not appropriate as FM clause in civil law country doesn’t depend upon statutes and takes effect automatically. Option (d) is irrelevant in this scenario.

3. Ans: (a)

Sol: The correct option is (a) – Aman would be liable as he has unilaterally terminated the contract and has caused losses to Rajeev. FM clause only suspends the liability of parties. It doesn’t give the power to terminate the contract unilaterally. Thus, for his unilateral act, Aman must be made liable.
Option (b) is a general legal principle but has no substantive effect in instant question. Option (c) is not correct as option to terminate the contract arises only after 90 days of action of FM, but in instant case, 90 days were not completed on date of termination. Option (d) hence becomes irrelevant.

4. Ans: (b)

Sol: The correct Option is (b) – His action will succeed as FM has not dissolved the liability of parties, but have merely suspended it. Ravi has breached the contract entered into with Sachin. He has to work exclusively for him for the time contract was in force. FM has only suspended the contract, but there still exists a contractual relation between them.
Option (a) is incorrect as there liabilities have not been dissolved, Option (c) is not the most appropriate answer in instant situation. Option (d) here becomes irrelevant.

5. Ans: (d)

Sol: The Correct option is (d) – Both (a) and (b).
Protection is granted as there are some unforeseen circumstances rendering the performance of contract impossible + Protection is granted by an equitable principle that no liability should exist for performance of impossible things.
Protection from contractual liability is conferred so that there should be no undue hardships on parties to perform things rendered impossible by some superior force, which is not in hands of person. Thus, there should exist no liability for performance of impossible contracts.
Option (c) is not appropriate as it has no weightage in eyes of law. Hence, Option (d) becomes relevant.

6. Ans: (d)

Sol: Option (d) is correct – Both (a) and (b).
Option (a) is correct as People would have not stopped their businesses and thus defying lockdown orders to protect themselves from any contractual liability they have entered into. This would have undoubtedly defied lockdown orders.
Option (b) is also correct as there would have been unnecessary litigation as people would have been running to courts to claim compensation from other party to the contract, due to impossibility of performing contract, other party can take undue advantage of helplessness of other parties.
Option (c) is not correct as changes mentioned above are inevitable as by human instinct. Option (d) is hence has no relevancy.