If you have been preparing for PCS-J 2026, you already know one thing — the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is the single most predictable scoring head in Law Paper-I. Every State PCS-J (UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Delhi) places 10 to 18 direct questions from this Act in Prelims, and the Mains long-form invariably picks one essential like free consent, consideration, or remedies. In this Section-Wise Drill, we move through the Act exactly the way examiners draft questions — section number, bare text trigger, leading case, and the trap. Treat this as your final-touch revision sheet before the May–July 2026 wave of state notifications.
1. Section 2 — The Definitions Vocabulary You Cannot Afford to Miss
Section 2 is the interpretation clause and the most over-tested provision after Section 10. Examiners love testing whether you can distinguish a “proposal” [Sec 2(a)], an “acceptance” [Sec 2(b)], a “promise” [Sec 2(c)], and “consideration” [Sec 2(d)]. The phrase you must memorise verbatim is in Sec 2(d): “When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing… such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.” The expression “any other person” is the source of the doctrine of consideration moving from a third party, settled in Chinnaya v Ramayya (1882). Drill question: an agreement without consideration is void — but Section 25 carves out three exceptions; learn them as natural love + past voluntary service + time-barred debt.
2. Sections 3–9 — Communication of Offer and Acceptance
This cluster is procedure-heavy. Section 4 fixes the moment of completion: communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made; acceptance, as against the proposer, is complete when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. The classic Indian application is Bhagwandas v Girdharilal (1966 SC), which held that where parties contract over telephone or telex, the contract is made at the place where acceptance is heard, not where it is spoken — distinguishing the postal rule. Pair this with the English mother-case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) for the doctrine of general offer and acceptance by conduct — directly relevant to Section 8.
3. Section 10 — The Master Section: Essentials of a Valid Contract
Section 10 is the gateway question every PCS-J examiner picks at least once in a five-year cycle. Memorise the formula: Free Consent + Competent Parties + Lawful Consideration + Lawful Object + Not Expressly Declared Void. Each limb is independently testable. The judiciary has additionally read into Section 10 an intention to create legal relations, borrowed from Balfour v Balfour (1919) — domestic arrangements are presumptively non-contractual. For deeper section-by-section notes including 40 solved MCQs, work through our parallel resource on the Indian Contract Act for Judiciary 2027.
4. Section 11 — Capacity to Contract and the Minor’s Agreement
The three disqualifications: minority, unsoundness of mind, and any other legal disqualification (insolvency, alien enemy, foreign sovereign). The single most-quoted Privy Council ruling here is Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 IA 114 — a minor’s agreement is void ab initio, not voidable. Corollaries you must drill: no ratification of a minor’s agreement on attaining majority (re-affirmed in Mathai Mathai v Joseph Mary, 2014 SC); a minor can be a promisee or beneficiary; doctrine of restitution under Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act applies sparingly. A favourite trap: Section 68 (necessaries supplied to a minor) — the minor’s property, not the minor personally, is liable.
5. Sections 13–22 — Free Consent and Its Five Vitiating Factors
Section 13 defines consent (consensus ad idem); Section 14 says consent is “free” when not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. Drill the distinctions ruthlessly:
- Coercion (Sec 15): Acts forbidden by IPC/BNS — now read with BNS 2023. The Act IPC reference must be updated mentally for 2026 — see our BNS vs IPC Section-Wise Mapping Guide for the cross-reference.
- Undue Influence (Sec 16): Position to dominate the will of the other; presumption arises in fiduciary relations (parent-child, doctor-patient, solicitor-client).
- Fraud (Sec 17): Intentional deception. Five forms enumerated; mere silence is not fraud unless duty to speak exists (Explanation to Sec 17).
- Misrepresentation (Sec 18): Innocent misstatement; remedy is rescission alone, no damages.
- Mistake (Sec 20, 21, 22): Bilateral mistake of fact essential to the agreement makes it void; mistake of Indian law is no defence; mistake of foreign law treated as mistake of fact.
Section 19 makes contracts vitiated by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation voidable at the option of the aggrieved party.
6. Sections 23–30 — Legality of Object, Void Agreements, Wagering
Section 23 declares unlawful any consideration or object that is (i) forbidden by law, (ii) defeats provisions of any law, (iii) is fraudulent, (iv) injurious to person or property, or (v) immoral or opposed to public policy. Pair this with Section 24 (partly unlawful consideration), Section 25 (no-consideration exceptions), Section 26 (restraint of marriage void), Section 27 (restraint of trade void — Indian position stricter than English; see Niranjan Shankar Golikari v Century Spg. & Mfg. Co., 1967 SC for the post-employment restrictive covenant test), Section 28 (restraint of legal proceedings, post-1997 amendment), Section 29 (uncertain agreements void), Section 30 (wagering agreements void — distinguished from contracts of insurance which require insurable interest).
7. Sections 31–75 — Performance, Discharge and Remedies
This is the second half of the Act, where PCS-J Mains questions concentrate. Hot zones to drill:
- Section 56: Doctrine of frustration / impossibility of performance — Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur (1954 SC); do not confuse Indian frustration (statutory under Sec 56) with the English common-law doctrine.
- Section 62: Novation, rescission, and alteration.
- Section 63: Promisee may dispense with or remit performance.
- Section 73: Compensation for loss/damage caused by breach — codifies Hadley v Baxendale (1854); only damages arising naturally or reasonably contemplated are recoverable; remote damages excluded.
- Section 74: Liquidated damages and penalty — reasonable compensation up to the named sum is recoverable even without proof of actual loss (Fateh Chand v Balkishan Das, 1963 SC; ONGC v Saw Pipes, 2003 SC; Kailash Nath v DDA, 2015 SC).
- Section 75: A party rightfully rescinding is entitled to compensation.
Remedies under the Act are restitutionary and pecuniary; the specific-performance remedy is governed by a separate code — our Specific Relief Act 1963: 8 High-Yield Sections for PCS-J 2026 covers that interface in detail.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. How many questions from the Indian Contract Act appear in PCS-J Prelims?
Across UP, Bihar, MP, and Rajasthan PCS-J prelims, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 contributes 10–18 direct objective questions in the Law paper, with Sections 2, 10, 11, 17, 23, 56, and 73 forming the most repeated cluster across the last five years of papers.
Q2. Is Hadley v Baxendale still applicable after the BNS-BNSS-BSA changeover?
Yes. The new criminal codes (BNS, BNSS, BSA) replace IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act — they do not touch the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which remains in force in its 1872 form (with later amendments to Sections 28 and 25). Hadley v Baxendale continues to govern the construction of Section 73.
Q3. What is the difference between a void agreement and a voidable contract under the Act?
A void agreement is not enforceable by law from inception (Section 2(g)) — for example, an agreement with a minor or in restraint of trade. A voidable contract is enforceable at the option of one party but not the other (Section 2(i)) — for example, contracts induced by coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation.
Q4. Which landmark cases on the Contract Act should I memorise for the Mains long answer?
Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose (capacity), Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (general offer), Balfour v Balfour (intention), Chinnaya v Ramayya (consideration from third party), Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur (frustration), Hadley v Baxendale (damages), and ONGC v Saw Pipes (liquidated damages). For a curated set, see our list of the Top 25 Supreme Court Judgments for Judiciary 2026 Revision.
Practice MCQs — Indian Contract Act, 1872
Q1. Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration may move from —
(a) Only the promisee
(b) Only the promisor
(c) The promisee or any other person
(d) None of the above
Answer: (c). The phrase “or any other person” enables the doctrine of consideration moving from a third party — Chinnaya v Ramayya.
Q2. The decision in Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose (1903) is the leading authority on —
(a) Doctrine of frustration
(b) A minor’s agreement being void ab initio
(c) Liquidated damages
(d) General offer
Answer: (b).
Q3. Which Section of the Indian Contract Act codifies the rule in Hadley v Baxendale?
(a) Section 56
(b) Section 62
(c) Section 73
(d) Section 74
Answer: (c). Section 73 limits damages to losses arising naturally or those reasonably contemplated by the parties.
Q4. An agreement in restraint of trade is —
(a) Void under Section 27, subject to one statutory exception (sale of goodwill)
(b) Voidable at the option of the restrained party
(c) Valid if reasonable
(d) Void only if injurious to public
Answer: (a). Section 27 makes all restraints of trade void in India; the only statutory exception is sale of goodwill. The “reasonableness” test of English common law does not apply.
Q5. Consent is said to be “free” under Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 when it is not caused by —
(a) Coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake
(b) Coercion or fraud only
(c) Mistake of fact only
(d) Force or threat only
Answer: (a). All five vitiating factors must be absent for consent to be free.
Final Drill Strategy — Last 19 Days to PCS-J 2026
Lay the bare Act open beside this drill sheet. Re-read Sections 2, 10, 11, 14–22, 23, 25, 27, 56, 73, 74 every alternate day until the prelim. Pair every section with one Indian SC ruling and one English mother-case. Solve 20 MCQs per day. Mark traps in a single-page cheat sheet. The Indian Contract Act rewards drill, not depth — and the PCS-J 2026 paper will thank you for the discipline.
