The section 2 (a), 2 (b) and 2 (c) agreement, whether the contract was signed within the meaning of section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872, in a letter issued to the plaintiff by the authorities, is the correct contract The suit was ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by the authorities for enforcement of the letters, which the plaintiffs claimed to be a contract between the parties, and the appeal was upheld in the court of appeal. Was. The parties and the underwriting letter cannot be considered as compromised in the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Contract Act, 1872, which is not covered by the question, neither the signature of the official (applicant) nor the district officer (applicant) concerned. Had the option of issuing such a letter. There must be at least two persons to form a valid contract, namely, advisers and promoters who agree to assist them in consenting to a legal item and legal consideration, as required under section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872 That is, only one of the claimant's signature was present in the letter and, therefore, did not fall under the definition set forth in Section 2 (b). The letter of the Contract Act, 1872 was not covered by the competent person. The signing of a letter cannot be called a valid agreement within the meaning of section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any order. In response to the question, the request for review of the letter was accepted, the decisions and orders of the two courts were set aside and the case filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
