The counter-offer rejected the original offer, meaning that the original offer could no longer be accepted.

The primary issue was the quality of materials used, as the builder used a different brand of pipe than specified.

The primary issue was the failure to perform to specifications as outlined in the contract.

The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India addressed the issue of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that it cannot be curtailed without a fair procedure.

The breach was fundamental as the performer failed to show up for the opening night, which was essential to the contract.

The court found that there was a mutual mistake regarding the identity of the ship, leading to no binding contract.

The significance was that offers can be revoked at any time before acceptance, even if a time frame is mentioned.

The plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages for the pain and suffering caused by the botched surgery.

The court held that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate, meaning it must have some value.

Performance refers to the act of fulfilling the obligations set out in a contract.

Negligence is defined as a breach of a legal duty that results in harm to another party.

The non-breaching party has a duty to mitigate damages, meaning they must take reasonable steps to reduce their losses.

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court asserted that federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The principle of judicial review was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison.

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, establishing a crucial precedent for judicial review.

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that Directive Principles are fundamental in governance.

The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ruled that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.

In Common Cause v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21.

In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

A court might order specific performance when the subject matter of the contract is unique, such as in real estate transactions.

Incorporation provides limited liability for shareholders, protecting their personal assets from the company's debts.

The case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation dealt with the right to work as a part of the Directive Principles.

The case of State of Kerala v. N. Rajan interpreted the Directive Principles related to the right to a decent standard of living.

Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable in a court of law.

Directive Principles are not justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced in a court of law.

Directive Principles of State Policy are not justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced in a court of law.

The Directive Principles aim to promote social and economic justice in the country.