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

361. In Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949), the exclusion notice in the hotel bedroom was ineffective because:

     कHotels cannot exclude liability in any case खIt was brought to the guest's attention after the contract had been made गIt was not in writing घThe guest was a minor
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

362. L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd (1934) established that a person who signs a contractual document:

     कIs bound by its terms even if they have not read them खIs bound only by the terms they have read गCan always avoid exclusion clauses घIs bound only if a witness was present
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

363. Hongkong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (1962) introduced the concept of:

     कPostal acceptance खAnticipatory breach गInnominate (intermediate) terms घPromissory estoppel
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

364. Breach of a warranty in a contract entitles the innocent party to:

     कClaim damages only खTerminate the contract and claim damages गClaim specific performance as of right घHave the contract declared void
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

365. In Cutter v Powell (1795), a sailor who died before the voyage ended could recover nothing because:

     कThe ship owner had become insolvent खThe contract was illegal गThe contract was an entire contract requiring complete performance घHe had breached a warranty
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

366. A claim for reasonable payment for work actually done, where the contract is discharged before completion, is known as:

     कNemo dat खCaveat emptor गRes ipsa loquitur घQuantum meruit
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

367. Which statement about specific performance is correct?

     कIt is a common law remedy for unliquidated damages खIt is the usual remedy for the sale of ordinary goods गIt is available as of right for every breach घIt is a discretionary equitable remedy, usually refused for contracts of personal service
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

368. A contract clause fixing the sum payable on breach as a genuine pre-estimate of the likely loss is treated as:

     कA condition precedent खAn exclusion clause गLiquidated damages, which are enforceable घA penalty, which is unenforceable
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

369. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) is the leading case on:

     कPromissory estoppel खRemoteness of damage in contract गCapacity of minors घOffer and acceptance
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

370. Hochster v De la Tour (1853) is authority that, where a party says before performance is due that it will not perform:

     कThe innocent party may sue for breach immediately खThe contract becomes void automatically गThe innocent party can claim only nominal damages घThe innocent party must wait until the date of performance
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।