Contract law familiarity is the most dangerous thing a CLAT aspirant can bring to a contract passage. The Consortium extracts sub-rules from the Indian Contract Act without naming it, reformulates them, and frequently presents principles that differ from the statute. The student who applies the passage wins over the one who applies the Act.
Tort passages typically state a single rule and test its application. Contract passages are more likely to be multi-step: a passage may define what constitutes a valid offer, what constitutes acceptance, and when a contract is formed — three rules operating in sequence. The fact scenarios test different failure points in this chain.
This means that in contract passages, you need to track which element of the chain is being tested in each question. A question may ask whether a valid offer was made, or whether acceptance was communicated, or whether the contract is void or voidable — these are distinct analyses even within the same passage.
The failure mode specific to contract passages: candidates map their entire knowledge of contract law onto a passage that states a narrower or differently formulated rule. The result is a series of technically well-reasoned but passage-incorrect answers.
The Consortium returns to offer-acceptance mechanics in almost every CLAT paper. The following traps appear repeatedly:
A passage that defines offer as "a definite proposal to be bound on specific terms without further negotiation" will classify shop displays, price lists, and advertisements as invitations to treat — not offers. Facts placing a customer in the position of offeror (by presenting an item at the till) test this. Answer: the display is not an offer; the customer's action to purchase is.
Any acceptance that introduces a new term — even a minor one — is a counter-offer under most CLAT passage formulations. The original offer is destroyed. Even if the counter-offeree later attempts to accept the original offer, they cannot — the original offer no longer exists unless renewed.
When does the contract form? If acceptance is by letter, the postal rule (formation on posting) and the receipt rule (formation on receipt) produce different outcomes. Both formulations appear in CLAT. The passage will specify which applies. Read it before answering any timing question.
Three sub-rules recur: (1) past consideration is generally invalid; (2) consideration need not be adequate but must have some value; (3) an existing contractual or legal duty cannot constitute consideration for a new promise. CLAT tests all three. The existing duty trap — "I will pay you to do what you are already obliged to do" — is particularly common with police officers and public servants in the fact patterns.
A minor's contract is void from the outset under the standard passage formulation — no obligations arise, and ratification on majority is ineffective. However, passages may include an exception for contracts of necessaries (food, clothing, shelter, education) under which the minor's estate is liable. If the exception exists in the passage, a beneficial contract with a minor may be enforced to that limited extent.
Coercion: unlawful act or threat that induces consent. Makes the contract voidable. Undue influence: dominant position exploited to obtain unfair advantage. Also voidable. The critical CLAT distinction: a threat of lawful action (filing a legitimate complaint, suing) is not coercion under most passage formulations. The threat must be unlawful.
Fraud: active deception, or silence where there is a duty to disclose. Makes the contract voidable plus damages. Misrepresentation: innocent false statement, honestly believed. Makes the contract voidable but no damages unless fraud is proved. The passage will state which definition applies and whether silence constitutes fraud — do not assume a duty to disclose unless the passage creates one.
Bilateral mistake of fact (both parties wrong about an essential fact): void. Coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation: voidable. Under a voidable contract, the aggrieved party may rescind and recover benefits. Under a void contract, there is nothing to rescind — the contract never existed. A question asking whether the aggrieved party can enforce turns entirely on this distinction.
"A contract is formed when a definite offer is accepted unconditionally and communication of such acceptance reaches the offeror. An acceptance that introduces any new term or condition is not an acceptance but a counter-offer. A counter-offer destroys the original offer, which cannot thereafter be accepted unless renewed by the offeror."
On 1 March, Avinash offers to sell his motorcycle to Priya for ₹80,000, delivery by 10 March. On 5 March, Priya writes: "I accept. Could you deliver by 8 March instead of 10 March?" Avinash receives this on 6 March and makes no reply. On 9 March, Priya sends: "My earlier message stands — I accept on your original terms, delivery by 10 March." Avinash refuses to sell.
Priya's 5 March message requested delivery by 8 March — a new term. Under the passage: new term = counter-offer, not acceptance. No contract formed on 6 March.
The counter-offer destroyed the original offer. Priya's 9 March message purports to accept terms that no longer exist. Avinash has not renewed the offer. No contract formed.
Almost never. The Consortium extracts sub-rules and reformulates them as standalone principles without naming the Act. This means your knowledge of specific ICA sections is not what is being tested — your ability to read and apply the passage principle is. A student who has never read the ICA can score higher than one who knows it well if they apply the passage rather than the statute.
A counter-offer is a response to an offer that introduces any new or different terms. Under the passage principle, a counter-offer is a rejection of the original offer and constitutes a new offer. The original offer is destroyed — it cannot subsequently be accepted unless the offeror renews it. CLAT passages test this in almost every contract passage, usually by having one party accept "subject to a condition" or with a modified term.
A void contract has no legal effect from the outset and cannot be enforced by either party. A voidable contract is valid until the aggrieved party elects to rescind it — until rescission, the contract is enforceable. The distinction matters for consequences: under a void contract, no obligations arise; under a voidable contract, benefits received must be restored on rescission. CLAT tests this mapping: coercion, undue influence, fraud, and misrepresentation make contracts voidable; bilateral mistake of fact makes a contract void.
Under the default passage formulation, past consideration is invalid — a promise to pay for a benefit already received is not supported by fresh consideration. However, some CLAT passages include an exception: consideration given at the promisor's request may be valid even if it preceded the promise. Read the passage carefully for this exception — if it exists, apply it. If it does not, past consideration invalidates the contract.
Through scenarios involving coercion (unlawful threat), undue influence (dominant position exploited), fraud (active deception or concealment with duty to disclose), misrepresentation (innocent false statement), and mistake. The passage will define one or more of these and state the consequence (void or voidable). Questions test whether the defined vitiating factor is present on the facts, and — separately — whether the consequence is void or voidable.
Under the standard CLAT passage formulation (reflecting the Indian Contract Act), a minor's contract is void from the outset and cannot be ratified on attaining majority. The contract is incapable of enforcement even with fresh consent. However, if the passage includes an exception stating that ratification accompanied by fresh consideration is valid, apply that. The passage controls, not the general rule.
Mere silence about a material fact is not fraud unless there is a duty to disclose. This duty exists in contracts of utmost good faith (insurance, for example) and where silence is equivalent to conduct amounting to deception. CLAT passages regularly present a seller who stays silent about a defect and ask whether this is fraud. The answer depends on whether the passage states a duty to disclose — if it does not, silence is not fraud.
Map the passage before reading questions. Identify: (a) what constitutes a valid offer, (b) what constitutes valid acceptance and when it communicates, (c) what makes the contract void or voidable, and (d) any exceptions. Label these elements. Each question tests one element. Then identify what specifically the question is asking — formation, validity, or consequence — and apply only the relevant element of your map.