In which of the following cases is a contract not voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused?

When the consent was caused by coercion
When the consent was caused by misrepresentation
When the consent was caused by silence but the party had the means of discovering the truth
When the consent was caused by fraud

The correct answer is: C. When the consent was caused by silence but the party had the means of discovering the truth

A contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused if the consent was caused by:

  • Coercion: This is when a party is forced to enter into a contract by threats of violence or other forms of duress.
  • Misrepresentation: This is when a party makes a false statement of fact that induces another party to enter into a contract.
  • Fraud: This is when a party makes a false statement of fact with the intention of deceiving another party and that party relies on the statement to enter into a contract.
  • Silence: This is when a party knows that a material fact is not known to the other party and fails to disclose it.

However, a contract is not voidable if the consent was caused by silence but the party had the means of discovering the truth. This is because the party who did not disclose the information is not considered to have made a misrepresentation.

For example, if you are selling a car and you do not tell the buyer that the car has a history of engine problems, the buyer may be able to void the contract if they can prove that you knew about the problems and intentionally concealed them. However, if the buyer could have easily discovered the problems by doing their own research, they will not be able to void the contract.

Exit mobile version