Worked Solution
✓ Verified(i) Discharge from liability for subsequent loans:
The guarantee given by Amit is a continuing guarantee as defined under Section 129 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A continuing guarantee is one which extends to a series of transactions. Here, Amit has guaranteed any amount Chander may lend to Bikram from time to time, subject to ₹1,00,000 — this squarely falls within the definition of a continuing guarantee.
Under Section 130 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a continuing guarantee may at any time be revoked by the surety as to future transactions, by giving notice to the creditor. Revocation operates only prospectively — it does not affect liability already incurred on past transactions.
In the given case, Amit revokes the surety one month later by (presumed) notice to Chander. At the time of revocation, Chander had already lent ₹10,000 to Bikram. Amit is discharged from all liability to Chander for any subsequent (future) loans given to Bikram after the notice of revocation. Chander cannot hold Amit responsible for any amount lent beyond ₹10,000.
(ii) Liability for the already borrowed ₹10,000 in case of default:
As established above, revocation under Section 130 only affects future transactions. The ₹10,000 already lent by Chander to Bikram is a past/completed transaction that occurred before Amit's revocation. Amit's guarantee for this amount had already crystallised at the time of lending.
Therefore, if Bikram makes a default in repaying the ₹10,000 already borrowed, Amit remains liable to Chander for ₹10,000. Revocation does not relieve Amit of the liability for transactions that had already taken place prior to the notice of revocation.
Conclusion: Amit is discharged only from liability for future loans post-revocation. He continues to be liable for the ₹10,000 already lent by Chander to Bikram before the revocation.
Write it like this
1The skeleton
- Start by classifying the guarantee as 'continuing guarantee' under Section 129 — examiners are trained to look for this label in line 1; if you bury it, you lose the definitional mark even if your conclusion is correct.
- Quote Section 130 next and immediately add the word 'prospectively' — this single word is the hinge of the entire answer; it tells the examiner you understand WHY the two parts of the question have different outcomes.
- Split your answer into two numbered sub-parts matching the question — Part (i) future loans, Part (ii) ₹10,000 already lent — examiners award half marks per part, so a wall of text risks losing one part entirely.
- State the conclusion for each part in one crisp sentence with the rupee figure — 'Amit is discharged from liability for any amount lent after the notice of revocation' and 'Amit remains liable for ₹10,000 already lent' — named amounts signal precision and score the application mark.
- End with a two-line 'Conclusion:' paragraph — this is a 5-mark case scenario; examiners expect a formal closing that ties both parts together, and skipping it leaves your answer feeling incomplete.
2Examiner-rewarded phrases
3Common trap
The single deadliest mistake here is saying Amit is discharged from ALL liability — including the ₹10,000 — because he 'revoked' the surety. That kills Part (ii) entirely and can cost you 2-3 marks. Revocation under Section 130 only kills future loans; the ₹10,000 already disbursed is locked in, and you must say so explicitly.