व्यावसायिक कानुन – Business & Corporate Law MCQ

व्यावसायिक कानुन: प्रश्न र उत्तर

सही लागेको विकल्पमा थिच्नुहोस्। सही भए हरियो, गलत भए रातो देखिन्छ; ३ सेकेन्डपछि सही उत्तर र व्याख्या देखिन्छ।

सही: ० / ०

381. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract whose consent was obtained by coercion is:

     कValid and fully enforceable खIllegal गVoid from the beginning घVoidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

382. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a wagering agreement is:

     कIllegal and punishable as a crime in every case खVoid गValid and enforceable घVoidable at the option of the loser
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

383. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person who supplies necessaries suited to the condition in life of a minor is entitled to:

     कNothing, as agreements with minors are void खSue the minor personally for the full price गRecover from the minor's parents in every case घBe reimbursed from the minor's property
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

384. In Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt (1913), the servant who traced the missing boy without knowing of the reward could not claim it because:

     कRewards are never legally enforceable खHe was a minor गThe offer had lapsed by time घThere can be no acceptance without knowledge of the offer
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

385. Under Indian contract law, as illustrated by Chinnaya v Ramayya, consideration:

     कMay move from the promisee or any other person खMust always move from the promisee गMust always be in money घMust be adequate to the promise
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

386. Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) illustrates the doctrine of:

     कUndue influence खFrustration गPromissory estoppel घPrivity of contract
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

387. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) is the leading English case on:

     कPrivity of contract खRemoteness of damage गFrustration of contract घPromissory estoppel
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

388. The rule in Pinnel's Case (1602) states that:

     कA debt can be discharged by an oral promise खPast consideration is valid consideration गPayment of a smaller sum on the due date does not discharge a larger debt घPayment by cheque never discharges a debt
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

389. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (1990) held that a promise to pay more for the same work can be enforced where the promisor obtains:

     कA practical benefit and there is no economic duress खA written document signed by both parties गPayment in advance from the other party घA court order
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

390. In Stilk v Myrick (1809), sailors were promised extra wages for working the ship home after two crew members deserted. The promise was unenforceable because:

     कPerforming an existing contractual duty is not good consideration खThe sailors were minors गThe promise was not made in writing घThe captain had no authority to contract
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।