Even if an unscrupulous contract is legally considered null and void and therefore unenforceable, asking a court to find that a contract is ruthless is an expensive process. By being aware of what it means that a contract is ruthless and knowing what the signs of a unilateral contract are, you can avoid future complications by renegotiating the terms or deviating from an agreement that is fundamentally unscrupulous. The National Commission found that the terms of the agreement were completely unilateral, unfair and non-binding on the respondent – the buyer of housing – having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore instructed the developer to reimburse the amount with interest on compensation. The Tribunal clarified that section 2(r) of the Act is illustrative in nature and is not exhaustive. Another court referred to the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Ors against Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors, where that right honourable court had held that an attempt to give illustrations could not be presented, but that no exhaustive list could be presented. However, the Court of Justice has presented the basic directive which states that it applies to situations in which the weaker party is able to acquire goods or services or means of subsistence only under the conditions imposed by the stronger party or without going there. In addition, the Court found that even when a man has no other choice, or rather a wise choice, than to vote in favour of a contract, to sign the points line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a number of rules as part of the treaty, no matter how unfair, unreasonable and unscrupulous a clause of that treaty or of that form or rules. “Inequality of bargaining power” is a term used in English law to express essentially the same idea as scruples, which in turn can be divided in cases of coercion, unacceptable influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where a person`s consent to an agreement was obtained only through coercion, undue influence or strong external pressure that another person exploited, the courts found it unscrupulous to enforce the agreements. There is controversy as to whether a contract should be questionable simply because one party was pressured by circumstances that were completely beyond the control of the other party. In the case, the buyer, Govindan Raghavan, had filed ₹48.3 million (₹695,000) with developer Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure for an apartment in the Araya complex, Gurugram. However, the builder did not obtain a certificate of occupancy of the apartment within the specified period of 39 months (with a grace period of 180 days) and therefore could not hand over the ownership of the apartment to the buyer within the period agreed by him in the contract.
In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd v. Govindan Raghavan, the Supreme Court held that a unilateral contract contrary to the interests of buyers could not be final and binding if it was proved that buyers had no choice but to sign on the points line. Lump sum buyer: the lump sum buyer argued that the terms of the contract were unilateral. Under the agreement, the contracting authority may calculate interest of 18% in the event of late payment, but the flat-rate buyer was only able to obtain a maximum rate of 9% for the termination of the contract due to the delay of the contracting authority. In addition, the buyer of the dwelling informed the court of an alternative sale of the dwelling by him because of an excessive delay on the part of the contracting authority and the bank loan he obtained for the purpose of the purchase of the dwelling by the contracting authority. . . .