R owns an electronics store. P visited the store to buy a water purifier priced at 54,000/-. He specifically requested R for a purifier with a copper filter. As P wanted to buy the purifier on credit, with the intention of paying in 9 equal monthly instalments, R demands a guarantor for the transaction. S (a friend of P) came forward and gave the guarantee for payment of water purifier. R sold P, a water purifier of a specific brand. P made payment for 4 monthly instalments and after that became insolvent. Explain with reference to the Indian Contract Act 1872, the liability of S as a guarantor to pay the balance price of water purifier to R. What will be your answer, if R sold the water purifier misrepresenting it as having a copper filter, while it actually has a normal filter? Neither P nor S was aware of this fact and upon discovering the truth, P refused to pay the price. In response to P's refusal, R filed the suit against S, the guarantor. Explain with reference to the Indian Contract Act 1872, whether S is liable to pay the balance price of water purifier to R?

As per section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the contract of guarantee is defined as a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default. In this case, S has given a guarantee for P's payment obligation towards R. When P defaulted after making four monthly instalments and became insolvent, S's liability as a guarantor will come into existence. According to Section 128 of the Act, the liability of the surety is co extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. Since P failed to pay the remaining instalments due to insolvency, S, as the guarantor, is liable to pay the balance price of the water purifier to R. In the given situation, S will have to pay the balance amount of ` 30,000 to R. [54,000-(4x6,000)] In the second situation, R sold the water purifier misrepresenting it as having a copper filter, while it actually has a normal filter; this changes the situation significantly. According to Section 142 of the Act, any guarantee which has been obtained by means of misrepresentation made by the creditor, or with his knowledge and assent, concerning a material part of the transaction, is invalid. Here, guarantee is obtained by means of misrepresentation made by the creditor (R), and therefore the guarantee is invalid. Furthermore, under Section 143, any guarantee which the creditor has obtained by means of keeping silence as to material circumstances, is invalid. Here R misrepresented the filter type and both P and S were unaware of this fact. The creditor (R) has obtained the guarantee by remaining silent as to material circumstances. Therefore, the guarantee obtained from S will be considered to be invalid. Consequently, S cannot be held liable to pay the balance price of the water purifier to R.