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

301. In Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt, a servant who found a missing boy without knowing of the reward announced for finding him was held:

     कEntitled to the reward as he performed the act खEntitled to half the reward गEntitled to sue for quantum meruit घNot entitled to the reward, because there can be no acceptance without knowledge of the offer
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

302. An offeror promises to keep an offer open for six weeks but receives nothing in return for this promise. Following Routledge v Grant, the offeror:

     कMust keep it open for the full six weeks खIs liable in damages if he revokes it गCan revoke it only with court permission घMay revoke the offer at any time before acceptance
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

303. In Dickinson v Dodds, the offeree learned from a reliable third party that the property had been sold to someone else. The court held that:

     कRevocation is valid only if made personally by the offeror खThe offer was effectively revoked, because the offeree knew of the withdrawal गThe offeree could still accept and sue घAn offer can never be revoked once made
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

304. For acceptances by instantaneous communication such as telex or telephone, Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation held that the contract is made:

     कWhere and when the acceptance is received by the offeror खWhere the acceptance is sent गOnly when written confirmation follows घWhen the offeree decides to accept
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

305. Under the postal rule laid down in Adams v Lindsell, an acceptance sent by post is generally complete when:

     कThe offeror reads the letter खThe letter reaches the offeror's address गThe letter of acceptance is properly posted घThe offeror replies confirming receipt
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

306. An uncle wrote to his nephew offering to buy a horse and added, 'If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine.' The nephew did not reply. In Felthouse v Bindley, it was held that:

     कThe contract was complete because the nephew intended to sell खThe uncle's terms bound the nephew गThe auctioneer was liable for breach of contract घSilence does not amount to acceptance
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

307. A offers to sell his land to B for Rs 10 lakh. B replies offering Rs 9 lakh, which A refuses. B then says he accepts the original Rs 10 lakh offer. Following Hyde v Wrench, what is the position?

     कA binding contract at Rs 10 lakh खA binding contract at Rs 9 lakh गA contract voidable at B's option घNo contract, because the counter-offer destroyed the original offer
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

308. In Harvey v Facey, a telegram stating 'Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900' in reply to a query was held to be:

     कA valid offer to sell खA mere supply of information, not an offer गA binding acceptance घA counter-offer
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

309. Goods displayed on the shelves of a self-service shop with price tags are, as held in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, generally:

     कAn offer accepted when the customer picks up the goods खA binding contract once the price tag is read गAn invitation to treat; the customer makes the offer at the cash desk घA counter-offer by the shop
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

310. In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, the court held that an advertisement promising a reward to anyone who used the product and still caught influenza was:

     कA general offer that could be accepted by anyone performing its conditions खA mere invitation to treat गA wagering agreement and void घNot binding because acceptance was never communicated by post
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।